Hi Mark, Platt and interested parties 14 Aug. markhsmit wrote (to Platt):
> I think I would tend to agree with you that Consciousness is > the Ground of being, without getting into semantics about > what that means. This brings to my mind the "Nature > of the Ground", a chapter in Aldous Huxley's book " The > Perennial Philosophy" (always a joy to read). In this > treatment of such a Ground, Huxley describes it as > "eternally complete consciousness". What is interesting > is that many writers which Huxley cites, compare this to God > (whatever that word may mean to them). Eckhart (the real one) > describes this as the "Divine Ground". If one is to strip away > all the dogmatic and controlling parts of a man-made God, > it could be that we are left with Consciousness. Don't take me too seriously, but you - Mark - don't understand what the, MOQ is about. Pirsig profess to have found existence's absolute bottom, this bottom even though dynamic have static layers and it's the instability/stability relationship that counts. If one, on the other hand, finds "Consciousness" as the ground of being, a Metaphysics of Consciousness is called for. If God (Divine Ground) is it, a Metaphysics of God is the next step. Pirsig's point (had he understood himself!) is that the Dynamic/Static divide is the only possible alternative to the Subject/Object divide, what the ground is ... for me it's "mu". All suggestions of what constitutes reality works fine as long as it is dynamic/static split. Platt will remember some of the entries, his own Beauty is a beautiful one, I once suggested Intuition. As said, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual consciousness works fine, but I'm afraid that you - Mark are stuck in the notion of consciousness as the subject's reflection of a reality outside of itself, and if so you are still at the intellectual level ... no wonder as "consciousness" is intellect's invention. It looks like no one really wants intellect's paradoxes dissolved, they want some utterly complicated innermost "interface" where mind and matter interacts. Like Ron who refuses to see the SOL (Intellect=SOM) as some "Lorentz Transformation". By the way, Mark, you knowing a bit about Relativity, isn't the said Lorentz Equations a way of understanding Einstein from Newton's "ground" and vice versa? > Where I get stuck is where does personal consciousness > come in? At some point, it seems to me that this Consciousness gets > divided up. This may be called an illusion by some, but it's one hell of > an illusion! (Sic) Bodvar 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/
