On 8/12 at 2:33 PM John Carl wrote --
I don't believe self is an illusion. I believe self is a choice.
Or let me put it this way, the self as a static entity is illusory
as an object, but the *existence* of a self is the self-evident
choice of consciousness.
I like your definition of the self as "choice." It complements my concept
of "value sensibility" by imbuing it with action. Actually, I believe that
the act of experiencing is making a choice, rather than passively receiving
external information. That choice shapes our objective reality to represent
our value-sensibility.
Self as entity is real.
It is certainly the most intimate reality we can know. Paradoxically, it's
the most difficult entity to define. In fact, I think it's easier to come
up with a conception of the primary source (Creator or Essence) than to peg
selfness as the locus of conscious awareness.
The contents of this entity are illusory as objects.
Yes, and the Pirsigians tend to regard the knowing self as illusory too.
Their definition of the subject as a "collection of interactive patterns"
hardly qualifies as an existing entity. Yet, my Internet search for a
proper definition has born no fruit. Isn't it ironic that, after thousands
of years, the greatest minds in history have been unable to fathom exactly
what a "mind" is?
My own theory is that, apart from its contents, the self is a 'negate'
(nothingness) -- a "cosmic void" that sucks up the value of Essence to
objectify its reality. There is metaphysical support for such a theory.
For example, whatever we can't sense or experience is by definition
nothingness. Secondly, the moment a particular entity is identified and
defined in space/time by the intellect, it becomes separated from the whole
of existence by nothingness. This suggests that the act of experience
differentiates finite phenomena by "encapsulating" them in our own
nothingness. Finally (and fundamentally), there is the problem of
explaining how an undivided absolute Source can give rise to differentiated
finite existence without negating the nothingness that actualizes it.
(That, incidentally, is the premise of my Creation hypothesis.)
At least, that's what I think.
If I am I.
And if I do think.
Which I think I do.
Which hopefully satisfies you cuz it sure satisfies me.
Bo hints that the original MOQ as described in ZAMM dissolves the
mind/matter enigma. But how? By making it a static level within the
umbrella of the MOQ? OK. Does that make the DQ of the MOQ
consciousness itself?
A form of meta-consciousness perhaps?
In Lila Pirsig says Quality is experience and experience is value. Is
consciousness the same as experience? Frankly, I don't see a
difference. So that would make Quality=Consciousness
Is this what you are saying, Bo? Is this where your train of thoughts is
leading, John?
How can I know until I get there? Right now I'm still on the roller
coaster at the bottom of the hill and looking forward to where this
rollercoaster metaphysical train ends up.
I don't see anything wrong with Quality=Consciousness, at least on the
immediate surface appearance...
I've an ongoing issue with the ambiguity of the term "value" as used for
"differentiation" vs. "the good", which to me is practically a night and
day
kind of opposition - the apprehension of an axis of travel vs an
apprehension of a direction to go. So it would depend upon which kind of
Quality you mean.
But even equating (as you do, Platt) Quality with Good, there is a way of
posing this in a revealing manner: In what way is consciousness different
from "the Good". And we haven't really gotten into much of a discussion
of
evil, but if there is evil, then it seems the only place it arises is in
human consciousness. Thus Quality is conscious, but not all consciousness
is Quality.
I'll be more sure after climbing out of my darkness, no doubt.
Or is the problem of consciousness something we don't want to deal
with? After all, nobody else has come up with a satisfactory explanation
of consciousness. The idea that it somehow emerges from a lump of
electric meat means it's a miracle. Shall we settle for that?
Relying on miracle as explanation is cheating in the metaphysic game.
Naughty! But I don't see a problem
in explaining consciousness. It's a good place to start when you're at
the bottom and in the dark. We shall go there in more detail. Promise.
Regards,
john
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/
