Hi Joe, I am not trying to be obscure or enigmatic. The way I see it is, when something is defined, it is presented with well understood semantic boundaries. It is a rigorous compartmentalization of a concept in terms of other concepts. When we build a house, each brick must have defined boundaries for the house to be put together. In this way, the brick is "defined" in a material sense. This analogy can be applied to language. For if we do not know what a person means (definition) by a word, we do not understand him/her and the building of a conversation is somewhat at a loss. So, definitions are necessary for communication, which is the "house" of the social level.
What I was saying with the sentence which you pasted below, is that logic cannot be used to define or even represent consciousness, since logic requires consciousness, and is only a part of consciousness. To describe consciousness therefore, we need more than just logic. The ultimate "definition" of consciousness would be the sum total of what it is. Such a thing cannot be presented through logic or words alone. This is also why the "Self" disappears on logical interrogation. Logic is the wrong tool to analyze the "Self", and so we are left with the mistaken intellectual notion that it does not exist. While this "non-existence" may result from a logical approach, it is far from a final conclusion. We all know that the Self exists, regardless of our intellectual conclusions. It is that which is peculiar to each and every one of us. While our bodies are very similar, our Selves are vastly different, each one a different perspective. It is not like a house with defined boundaries. There is much much more within the mind than is represented outside the mind. These Selves cannot be compared since we do not have any attributes with which to compare them with. All we have is our thinking and exchanges through words which is not much to go on since that gives no indication of what it is truly like to be conscious. It is like trying to explain a painting over the telephone to another. That "another" never "sees" the painting, only hears the words, and therefore never "experiences" the same painting as the person who is describing it to them. So when we state that perception is relative to the Self, it really has no meaning since it cannot be otherwise. The Self is Perception. The same can be said for Truth being relative to the Self. Well yes, how else could it be? Even if Truth were some Object outside of us, we would still perceive it individually. The term Relative has no meaning here, except to say that we are not one big mind. Even if we were one big mind, it is still broken up into little minds through the nature of our bodies, and for all practical purposes it is different minds. I much prefer the concept of relativity in physics, which is very different. So much for that diatribe :-), needed to get that out for no particular purpose. That "some levels in evolution" are indefinable is not something mystical to me, it states (to me) that you do not have words to define it, or that language cannot encapsulate it. That is, Language is the wrong tool to explore your evolution. But, there are many other ways, in my opinion. Acceptance, as you say, is one of these. This is what many call Faith, and I fully understand and respect its personal use. But, thee is ritual, meditation, and other ways which cannot be converted to words. My guess, is that you mean something else by undefinable. Is that true? Reality IS indefinable since words are only a small part of reality. The rest has no words associated with it, and therefore cannot be defined. In the same way, our reality is only a small part of Reality. (No, we do not create Reality, Reality creates with us. We are not so powerful. For indeed, how would it be that we create Reality? What tools do we use for such construction? We are the tools). So, reality being indefinable is just "common sense" to me anyway. Just because reality is undefined does not mean that we cannot participate in it and influence it. For that is what we do. Hope this clears up what I am presenting (as an opinion). I got a bit carried away... Cheers, Mark On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I don"t understand what you are saying! I accept that "consciousness" > embraces DQ. In MOQ DQ is indefinable not outside of consciousness. > That indicates to me that some levels in evolution are indefinable. If I > wish to discuss the indefinable I have to accept the order in reality, > evolution, like DQ/SQ, as a starting point. > > Evolution seen as an order in existence suggests that the order in existence > accepts indefinable reality in existence DQ/SQ, not that reality is > indefinable. > > > On 12/15/11 4:32 PM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Logic falls apart when consciousness is involved, mainly because >> consciousness comes before logic. > > > 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
