Greetings Ham,
Both of your statements "Neither ideas nor "patterns of value" exist
without a cognizant agent to realize them." and "YOU are the cognizant
agent of your values." are, in fact, also conceptual ideas, or as I would
label them: static patterns of value. And your statement "YOU are your
SELF."? It is pure concept!
You do not go far enough.
Marsha
On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
>
> Dear Marsha --
>
>> 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.
>
> You avoid analysis for the very reason that the "independent entity" you thnk
> is a "distortion" of your experience is in fact your "self".
>
> I know you're tired of hearing me say this, but "inorganic, biological,
> social, and intellectual static patterns of value" is a conceptual idea.
> Ideas are thoughts structured by the subjective mind and sometimes
> communicated to others by words and symbols. Patterns are relational
> configurations recognized intellectually and added to ideas or precepts.
> Neither ideas nor "patterns of value" exist without a cognizant agent to
> realize them. YOU are the cognizant agent of your values.
>
> To put it as simply as I can (i.e., no analysis required), YOU are your SELF.
>
> May the peace of understanding comfort you,
> Ham
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>> 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 your psychedelia, 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
