Hmmmmm. Interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ_HsQkBkJA On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:40 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
