Greetings Ham,
You wrote "ALL awareness is proprietary to the self.", and I continue to
maintain that there is no self. An "independent self" is no more than a
flow of ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic, biological, social,
and intellectual static patterns of value. On reflection, the awareness
I describe has nothing consistent or central about it, either. I think it
best that I keep it away from analysis which will surely distort the
experience into an independent entity, which is what intellectual
analysis is prone to do.
Marsha
On Jul 29, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> Hi Marsha, and welcome Andy --
>
>
> Thanks to you both for introducing a subject dear to my heart. I only wish
> Marsha had titled this new thread "the cognitive agent" rather than
> "cognitive awareness."
>
> [Marsha]:
>> I don't know if you might have a comment, or that I can agree
>> with such a comment, but I share this interest with you for
>> what it is worth.
>>
>> So many times I have wanted to explore this with you,
>> but it is difficult. I do not believe it is something RMP
>> confronts directly, but I can easily relate it to unpatterned
>> experience and static patterns. Regardless, I am an
>> introverted explorer and wonder about the flow of
>> consciousness and awareness.
>
> Cognitive awareness comes under the topic of epistemology, a study sorely
> missing in Pirsig's Quaity thesis. As a consequence, the difference between
> intellect and awareness is muddled, and thinking, if not awareness itself, is
> often falsely attributed to some extracorporeal domain.
>
>> For me the 'flow of consciousness' comes in two flavors.
>> There is the creative re-membering of static patterns from the past.
>> And there is the creative projecting of static patterns into a future.
>> Unless this seems to be address solving a problem, I dismiss
>> most as imaginative story.
>
> Memory, experience, and intellectual projection are all components of
> conscious awareness. When used in combination, we call it reasoning or
> intellection. Simple example: I emptied the milk container at breakfast
> yesterday (memory); I'm hungry for creamed chipped beef but see no milk in
> the refrigerator (experience); I shall therefore have to visit the grocery
> store and purchase more before lunch (reasoning).
>
>> There is also an cognitive 'awareness' that is more immediate,
>> and more puzzling. I suppose it is the techniques of mindfulness
>> that brings this type of experience to ones attention.
>> I have read that the Buddhist define these as six consciousnesses
>> representing the five senses and mind: I am aware of the thought
>> of a dog. I am aware of seeing a dog. I am aware of hearing
>> a dog, smelling a dog, feeling a dog, etc.
>>
>> There is another type of awareness that seems to be awareness
>> without an 'I' and without an object. It is impossible to grasp
>> because it is lost the moment one tries. This is the awareness I
>> have called 'unpatterned experience'. This is more like rabbit/duck
>> graphic experience that Craig cited, but it's unpatterned/patterned.
>>
>> Anyway, there does seem to be a cognitive agent(individual) involved,
>> but not one I would designate a consistent, central controller.
>
> Forget about the "controller"; ALL awareness is proprietary to the self. What
> you are describing here is immanent sensibility -- awareness captured by
> cognitive value. A typical example of this is being struck by "love at first
> sight". You instantly realize the value of the experience or insight without
> rationalizing the reasons. As Platt has suggested, aesthetic experience --
> beauty, magnificence, rapture, etc. -- also falls into this category.
>
> I've always been concerned by your denial of a "self", Marsha, and suspect
> that it comes from reading too much Buddhist philosophy. You are a cognizant
> creature, which means that you are aware of what you think and feel. Nobody
> else has Marsha's awareness, thinks for her, or forms her ideas. There's no
> domain out there that contains Marsha's intellect or moral values. As a
> cognizant human being your life-experience is absolutely unique. You are the
> cognizant locus of your reality, This doesn't mean you are not influenced by
> the thoughts of others, only that what you know and feel as Marsha is yours
> alone.
>
> [Andy]:
>> Marsha, you mentioned unpatterned experience and cognitive
>> agents. I think cognition is essentially pattern recognition.
>> The agent of cognition is concerned with patterns previously\
>> recognized and patterns newly recognized. This almost fits with
>> your "two flavors".
>>
>> I fail to see how an agent can have unpatterned experience.
>> "Awareness of" is what you get *after* the Quality event.
>> How can awareness take place before Quality has created values?
>> That would permit Quality to be *seen* but that's impossible;
>> only values can be seen. We know about Quality because we see
>> everything that it creates; we don't see Quality itself.
>>
>> My experiences in meditation and psychedelia may have fooled me
>> into believing that I could do that. I don't believe it anymore. I think
>> what happened was a temporary inaccessibility of most previously
>> recognized patterns. As mysterious and wonderful and terrible as it
>> was, that experience was not unpatterned. It was far less rigidly
>> patterned than the experience to which I had become accustomed,
>> so less static and closer to DQ, but not quite there.
>
> I agree with your epistemology, if not with your psychedia, Andy. However, I
> view the Self as the "agent", and in deference to Pirsig, I do believe
> cognitive agents are primarily oriented to non-discrete ("unpatterned"?)
> Value or what he called "pre-intellectual experience". Epistemologists might
> say we are "wired to be value-sensible". Value is primary to cognizant
> awareness. How else can we explain the impact value has on us, let alone the
> fact that we create values as experienced phenomena?
>
> On the other hand, I depart from Pirsig's theory that Quality (Value) is the
> agent/agency of the cosmos and its guiding "moral principle". I say this for
> the following reasons. First of all, Value is an attribute of the Primary
> Source, not an independent "essence" in its own domain. Secondly, it is
> obvious to me that man is uniquely equipped with the value-sensibility and
> intellect that enables him to be a "free agent" of value. (Unfortunately,
> Individual Freedom is not a concept championed by Mr. Pirsig.) Putting all
> this together, my philosophy holds that man exists to freely realize the
> value of Essence and exercise his rational, self-directed value in creating a
> moral world.
>
> As Marsha knows, I call this philosophy Essentialism. As a newcomer here,
> Andy, you are cordially invited to read my online thesis at
> www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
> 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
___
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
