Ooops, I forgot: Thank you your response, and Andy for yours, I
appreciate both your ideas. - Marsha
On Jul 30, 2010, at 6:57 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> 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
___
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
