Hello again, Been thinking, normally dangerous, but with a fever doubly so. - I keep thinking about you using the term "rational construct". It seems to me while your Philosophy of Essence and the Metaphysics of Quality are both centered on Value their major difference is reason versus experience. Yes? Rationality versus Empiricism? Do you agree? And having done a search, I see ti is a very old conflict, indeed. Hmmm.
Marsha On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:49 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > Greetings Ham, > > On Oct 2, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ham Priday wrote: >> >>> Marsha: >>> How I understand conscious awareness is as pure process, >>> 100% immediate experience, and the moment one tries to >>> analyze it, it is gone. All other entities - I, knower, self, >>> individual, me, etc. - are _conceptually constructed_ and >>> have no independent existence. They are a conglomerate >>> ever-changing, impermanent, interdependent, inorganic, >>> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value. >> >> Ham: >> Marsha, you are attempting to describe the subjective self as if it were an >> objective entity, which of course is impossible. Yes, "raw" experience is >> "immediate", but it hardly represents 100% of conscious awareness. There is >> also the memory function which links self-awareness to the past and makes >> experience a continuum; the emotive response which is the psycho-biological >> reaction to what is experienced; and intellection which interprets the data >> as a rational construct. 'I', 'Knower', 'Individual', and 'Me' are not >> different entities but simply the labels we use to identify the Self. >> >> That standard definition, which even you must be tired of by now, paints a >> fuzzy picture of self-awareness as if to demean its credibility--which of >> course is your intent. I still feel this is somewhat disingenuous on your >> part. Certainly we cannot objectivize, quantify, measure, or localize >> conscious awareness as we can, say, a rock or a tree. Conversely, however, >> what would the rock or tree be if there was no awareness of it? As Pirsig >> insisted, experience is primary; and since experience is known only to >> awareness, all we really know about objective existence is that it is >> patterned from sensible value. > > Marsha: > I am putting aside the experience of raw data (unpatterned experience) and > talking about conscious awareness as in mindfulness. Mindfulness is a > technique easily learned and strengthened through practice. It's the > experience of being here-now without constructing an associated past or > future. In the mindfulness experience there is no building a subjective self > for it is all _process_, all immediate experience. Pattern recognition seems > limited to the function of the sense organ. It is _habit_ that associates > these immediate experiences with an individual, independent self, or its > various labels, rather than understanding that it is a flow of experiences. > _Habit_ that when conscious awareness (mindfulness) stops then the making of > meaning begins (internal story-telling). It is the conceptual constructing, > making of meaning, that creates the independent self. It is an > after-experience add-on. I am suggesting that in mindfulness it is obvious > that experiences comes fi rst, and that associating now-experiences to a 'self' is a secondary habit. Experience is primary! Self-building is secondary. > > > Thanks Ham, > > > > Marsha > > > > > > ___ > > > 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
