On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
> [Marsha]
> But there is an awareness, that is separate from the five sense and patterns,
> that does not cling to such imaginings. This awareness/experience sits in
> the present. Witnessing. It seems to be as proprietary as my eyes.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure what I can respond to here, except to maybe say I'd restate this
> to read "This awareness/experience IS the present".
Seems so.
> When you say "witnessing", it seems to me to play right into the SOM way of
> thinking. I'd say that this apart-from-the-world witnessing thing is the
> "optical delusion" Einstein was referring to. It is to give into the
> proprietary biological boundedness by carrying this "uniqueness" all the way
> the through the entirety of the "self".
Well, I think the sweet looking little physicist very sexy, but I'm not sure
what he can tell be about these experiences. I consider the 'self' more the
imaginary talk which disturbs my awareness, the 'I' this, 'I' that, 'I' wish
nonsense, the ego ramblings. I don' consider this witnessing separate from the
world either, that's not the case I'm trying to make.
> The "you" that "witnesses" is the result of a merger between your unique
> sensory trajectory and your appropriation of the shared narratives of the
> collective.
>From this statement, I think I have not described the experience very
>successfully.
> By forgrounding the "proprietary", you turn the "self" into what Pirsig
> called "this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs
> looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the
> world", which he calls "completely ridiculous".
No, I absolutely do not. That is how you may be interpreting my words, but
your words do not work for me, at all.
>
> [Arlo previously]
> Prior to the appropriate of a shared, cultural consciousness, the human
> organism has a sense of the world exclusive to its sensory experiences.
>
> [Marsha]
> So the books say.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well I don't privilege "the books", but I don't ignore them either.
I am trying to explain experience, not applying what I've read in a book. The
explanation is more an open question at this point, and I was curious what Ham
would say because of his insisting on, some sense of, proprietary YOU. The
pronouns are killing this conversation.
>
> [Marsha]
> No offense Arlo, but this is all analogy, patterns, storytelling. I'm trying
> to discover what is going on from the experience point-of-view., and why I
> find this witnessing-awareness so interesting.
>
> [Arlo]
> Fair enough, although I don't know how we can talk about things apart from
> "analogy, patterns, storytelling". Of course what I say is all these things.
> It HAS to be. It can't be anything else. But the same goes for what you say.
> Viva la narrative!
I love stories, and I appreciate it's all is story. I guess there's no way of
getting there via the language, but I'll continue to investigate. Do you do
that? - I cannot just have any Tom, Dick or Harry telling me how it is. I
have the time and I will follow the threads to the ends of the worlds, or as
long as I can.
Marsha
p.s. Lots of motorcycles out day.
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/md/archives.html
