Will2, As an aside, nothing gave me more incitement than to discover: opposite-from-non-chair and non-chair. There it is, in all its conceptual glory, opposite-from-non-chair, every last bit, and all in love.
Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of markhsmit Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?) On Aug 23, 2009, at 12:56:39 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: Again, duality is "simply intellectualizing" a concept based on experience. The concept has no particular esthetic value; it's simply a relational precept or principle of existence. Tell me, do you "experience the world in a non-dual manner" by erasing this concept from your mind or by imagining yourself as the world you see? Hi Ham, I experience the world in a non-dual manner, by neither of the above, because that would be subjecting it to the duality of logical thought. It is not a logical experience per se. Much in the same way that the feeling of happiness has no logic to it. It is beyond the intellect, which merely tries to enclose it, and sometime I feel, diminish it. In terms of "meaning", this can be achieved non-intellectually in a more true manner than otherwise. (OK, what is true, what is meaning, I know the routine). I would posit that what you call intellectual understanding is just an extension of what you term experiences. You like your ontology because it feels right, not because it is logical. What differentiates it from another ontology which may have much more logic behind it? It is that it feels right to you. If you change your mind, it is not because of additional logic, it is because it feels better. What drew me to MOQ, that is, that it was beyond intellectualizing, could not be encapsulated. While this is difficult to understand by someone who requires logic and and so called conceptualizing, there are logical paths that can be followed to achieve a certain amount of Eureka. That is, if one is willing to accept that such a thing exists to begin with. Oh, the square root of negative 2 cannot exist mathematically, yet it does. The opposite of a chair does not exist. In fact all physical objects have no opposites, only concepts do. Many things do not exist, the sound of beauty for example. "Without consciousness", hmm there is not much if it is the ground of everything, but it certainly has nothing to do with thinking, that is just electrical firing. Yes it is sad that modern man has no time to think of the inner spirit, philosophy is going in circles (easy for me to say, knowing very little of the subject). I do like your estrangement from the source and Value sensibility as a form of understanding the human condition. What does it do for you besides providing you with a nice logical explanation? Is there more to it than just the conceptualization? I ask this in all seriousness. Buddha brought to people a large source of compassion which is rooted in, and directly results in, a glowing feeling for all sentient beings. I see no reason why one cannot extend this beyond just the sentient, since I feel, in the final analysis, that our so called mind is no different than the wind. But now I am starting to ramble. Willblake2 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/
