On May 28, 2009, at 9:34:40 AM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Is it serious? Date: May 28, 2009 9:34:40 AM PDT To: [email protected] Andre: Hi Willblake , are you serious or are you being facetious? Willblake2 Perhaps I am displaying the my simplicity, but if individual consciousness does not exist, what is the I that is seeing though my eyes?
Andre: Perhaps we have all been hynotised into thinking that there is an 'I' Willblake2. Pirsig suggests that the confusion lies in the language we have inherited: "This Cartesian 'Me' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgement on the affairs of the world. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a soft-ware reality, not a hardware reality'. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program...(Lila p 204). This last sentence sums it up for me. We are simply variations of the same program and the whole 'program' consists of static patterns of value and so are 'we'. These variations have come about through the different sets of analogues we use to interpret Quality cognitively whilst the primary reality is the same for all of us. And even our analogies are not, stricktly speaking our own...they are all from these boxcars making up the train. It seems to me, Willblake2, that we have built up a cult of the individual which serves religious, socio/political and economic ends but as I have tried to suggest a few times, the REAL differences between individuals are negligible. We all drink from the mythos and have built society, gods, dogma's, logic etc etc. Within a cult of individualsm you can blame the other for all the things that go wrong endlessly dividing, slicing, cutting up all that is whole and has been whole from the beginning. That is the mess we are in and stay in because we do not assume any responsibility for it. Taking responsibility for this yourself and not leave it up to your neighbour, Obama, Hu Jintao or your mother-in law. It starts within your heart, head and through your hands as a representative of these patterns of quality. I think the 'I', the unique 'I' does not exist. I am interested in your views on this Willblake2 (following on from Bo, can you change your name? This sounds like talking with a computer program!!) Cheers Andre Hi Andre Call me Mark Perhaps we are hypnotized perhaps we are not, which seems more useful a concept? The real differences between individuals is enormous in the sense that you cannot look through my eyes. You could be anybody, but you are not. I do not agree with Pirsig that the notion of I collapses. It may do so in an objective philosophical sense. But from a subjective sense it is as real as it gets. What does it feel like to not be "I". Is it like a rock? Even a rock has an I, I would think, just not in the same way. I am not talking about the concept of an individual, or an individual consciousness as an objective subject which can be dealt with in objective ways. I am a whirlpool in a river, a temporary amalgamation. But I am still me, not you. I understand the concept that I am everything. because what I am is the everything that I create. However, I am creating it, not something else. Cheers, Mark Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
