Greetings, Platt --
You have provided an excellent summation of six individual interpretations
of Consciousness (if RMP is included). The points of convergance should
also be useful for future reference on this subject. I commend you for an
impressive piece of analytical reporting on a difficult subject!
With regard to your conclusion that no one "with the possible exception of
Ham" has posited consciousness as the ground of being, I'd like add this
note by way of clarification. Consciousness is the ground of "being" to the
extent that value-sensibility is the ground of Consciousness (being-aware).
Also, whether consciousness belongs to the "intellectual level" or not, it
is a finite reduction of Sensibility which (like Value) is absolute in
Essence. My hypothesis is that finitude is a "negated subset" of
"absoluteness" that creates or actualizes the primary mind/matter dichotomy
from which all difference is derived.
Thanks for a most interesting and challenging query, Platt.
Best regards,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hi Andre, Bo, Ham, Willblake, John, All:
Interesting reactions and responses to my queries about consciousness
and how it's presented, treated and interpreted with the MOQ as the
primary reference.
First, from Andre came perhaps the most definitive Pirsig quote on the
subject:
"At the time we are aware of millions of things around us...aware of
these
things but not really conscious of them unless there is something
unusual or
unless they reflect something we are predisposed to see. We could not
possibly be conscious of these things and remember all of them
because our
mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to think.
From
all this awareness we must select, and what we select and call
consciousness
is never the same as the awareness because the process of selection
mutates
it. We take a handfull of sand from the endless landscape of awareness
around us and call that handfull of sand the world.
"Once we have the handful of sand, the world of which we are
conscious, a
process of discrimination goes to work on it. This is the knife." ZAMM (p
75).
'Classical understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for
sorting and interrelating them'' (the Aristotelian, dialectical method and
classification?). Romantic understanding is directed toward the handfull
of
sand before the sorting begins' (note this is separated from the 'endless
landscape') (ibid,p76)
So for Pirsig, consciousness is a biological selection mechanism
operating within a background of awareness described metaphorically as
an "endless landscape." (Note that "experience" is not mentioned.)
Secondly, Bo views consciousness as "a direct product of S/O," citing
Descartes as originator of the mind (consciousness) /matter division. As
such, consciousness is firmly ensconced in the intellectual level as is
awareness, both being intractably subjective.The metaphor of
an"endless landscape" of ZAMM becomes an "aesthetic continuum" in
Lila. Previously Bo has waxed metaphorical, referring to all embracing
ocean while we necessarily focus on the waves. (See a similar metaphor
from Pirsig below.)
Thirdly, Ham the Idealist quotes extensively from Donald Hoffman who
expands on the Idealist's belief that nothing exists until consciously
perceived. He proposes that an existence, independent of your personal
observation, is maintained by "systems of conscious agents." Thus, for
Hoffman (and presumably Ham) "Consciousness is fundamental in the
universe, not a fitfully emerging newcomer." Though I don't understand
Ham's concept of a "negate" or "nothingness," I guess his metaphor for
consciousness is a "cosmic void."
Fourthly, John Carl reflects Pirsig's view that consciousness and
selection (choice) are intimately connected and adds to that mix the idea
of "self" as the "self-evident choice of consciousness." Thus self is real
but the contents of self (consciousness) are illusory. John cautions us
not to take his current thinking as his final word on the subject,
suggesting tentatively that perhaps DQ is a "meta-consciousness." He
agrees with Ham that the selection mechanism of consciousness
presupposes values and likes Ham's description of the process as
"value sensibility."
Finally, Willblake2 says consciousness is NOT the same as experience.
It's what's behind experience -- the "I" (self) of experience as it were.
Metaphorically, Willblake2 compares consciousness to "the page of a
book. It is the white background. On that page there are words,
sentences, feelings, experiences. One must not confuse the writing for
consciousness itself."
A couple of conclusions. With the possible exception of Ham, no one is
willing to say that consciousness is the ground of being. Behind
consciousness is something else that can only be described
metaphorically, never definitively In Lila, for example, there's this
passage:
"He stopped for a second by the beach and just stared at the endless
procession of waves moving slowly in from the horizon.
The south wind was stronger here and it cooled him. It was steady, like a
trade wind. Nothing interfered with its flow toward him over the huge
ocean. 'Vast emptiness and nothing sacred.' If ever there was a visible
concrete metaphor for Dynamic Quality this was it." (Lila, 32)
Everyone seems to agree that consciousness per se is not the end all
and be all. There is a mysterious something behind and/or beyond
supporting it. What that something is we can only obliquely surmise. As
the quantum physicist Eddington exclaimed:
"Something unknown is doing we don't know what -- that is what our
theory amounts to. It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I
have read something like it elsewhere --
. . . The slithy toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe."
A pretty good definition of DQ I'd say -- toves finding value in the wabe.
My other conclusion is simply that Bo is right -- consciousness belongs
in the intellectual level. It's the "mind" of the mind/matter split.
Pirsig
says so himself. Note 32 of LC:
"Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e., intellectual patterns) . .
." and then adds, "A question arises if the term 'consciousness' is
expanded to mean 'intuition' or 'mystic awareness.' Then computers are
shut out by the fact that static patterns do not create Dynamic quality."
Since all respondents to my inquiry exhibit "intuition" of something
transcending consciousness -- and by implication something surpassing
the intellectual level -- they can be said, unlike some self-appointed
"intellectuals" here who will remain nameless, to be DQ creators.
Thanks for your responses. If I've misrepresented anyone's ideas, I
apologize in advance.
Regards,
Platt
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/
