Mark, Way too many ambiguous terms for this discussion to go anywhere, but thanks for responding.
I once watched over eight hours of presentation from a conference on consciousness, 'The Consciousness Chronicles 2-dvd set.' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBo3h3-WrL ) It was all very interesting, but no consensus was to be found. I've read plenty from Alan Wallace and others suggesting a Buddhist perspective. Interesting to think about, but I do not know. Maybe _interdependency_ is the most I can say. Marsha On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:08 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > > Mark > > On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:20 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> The radio show, 'To the Best of our Knowledge', ran a program called 'Meet >> Your Mind' on the topic of consciousness which included the six segments >> listed below. The six items were not book titles. I thought it was an >> interesting show, but if it didn't interest you that's okay too. > > I was only making a point about SQ. modeling the mind using the mind is like > the sun shining on itself. The items were interesting in their own way. I > was simply using the principles of MoQ. >> >> You state that you are more interested in what makes a consciousness yours. >> Well, what makes a consciousness yours? _To possess?_ What makes a heart >> yours? What makes a motorcycle yours? What makes knowledge yours? What >> makes righteousness yours? What makes an experience yours? Possibly >> patterns of thought? It's _yours_ because you think it??? It's mine. It's >> mine. It's mine. It's mine. It's mine. It's mine. Or it's not mine. >> It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not mine. It's not >> mine. > > I don't think you understood my interest. It has nothing to do with > possession. It had to do with the singularity of being. When I say "mine", > I am referring to DQ, not some static hypothetical. It is important not to > confuse DQ with SQ, otherwise one exists only in object/object metaphysics. >> >> The Buddhists have perception divided into six senses: eyes, ears, nose, >> tongue, body(touch) and mind (awareness of mental phenomenon.) I didn't >> think anyone could yet explain seeing, let alone consciousness. But isn't >> it better to consider such things then to take them for granted? Within the >> MoQ aren't the sensual experiences considered biological in what they value? > > The senses are our physical connections with existence. For the Buddhist > they were doorways. The biological is an intellectual construct and has > nothing to do with connections or doorways. Again you seem to be imposing > object/object metaphysics onto DQ/SQ. this will never lead anywhere. If you > call them biological, what more does that tell you about the senses? You are > imposing a concept as if real. >> >> RMP: "Consciousness can be described as a process of defining Dynamic >> Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no >> longer apply to Dynamic Quality." >> (LILA's Child). > > Well, that is certainly not the standard definition of consciousness. Pirsig > is referring to thought here, which is why he qualified with "can be > described". this implies there are other ways to describe it. it is that > point that is important. descriptions are SQ, and not the real thing. if we > think they are the teal thing, they no longer apply to DQ. there is nothing > wrong with definitions unless they entrap us in SQ. but we already know that > from MoQ. > > Consciousness is more than thought. However, if this is how you see > consciousness, are you defining DQ as you listen to Wagner? If so, what kind > of definition is that? > > I don't see enjoying Wagner as SQ; it cannot be defined. Yet we are > conscious as we do so, even if we are not thinking, but instead dancing. > > Cheers, > Mark >> >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:47 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> Good for them neuroscientists. Consciousness under a microscope. >>> >>> The nature of consciousness is not that important to me. What is >>> important, is what makes this consciousness mine. >>> >>> That is one question which will never be cracked by science, at least for >>> the time being. Perhaps in time they will discover the planet which is >>> broadcasting the avatar. A little spirit chucker somewhere out there. >>> >>> Since the Self cannot be found through science, or any form of logic, that >>> puts it outside of the realm of those researchers. I guess we will just >>> have to guess on that one. >>> >>> By the way, have you come across any good hypothesis in your research on >>> this one? I have lost interest, and am not sure what the flavor of >>> consciousness is these days. Maybe I should pick up one of those books. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mark >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:49 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> To the best of our knowledge... >>>> >>>> Neuroscientists have made remarkable discoveries about the brain, but >>>> we're not close to cracking the mystery of consciousness. How does a >>>> tangle of neurons inside your skull produce...you? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://ttbook.org/book/mind-and-brain >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. David Chalmers, the Hard Problem of Consciousness >>>> >>>> 2. David Eagleman on Brain's Secret Life >>>> >>>> 3. Steve Paulson on Why Consciousness >>>> >>>> 4. Sy Montgomery on Octopus >>>> >>>> 5. Alva Noe on Embodied Consciousness >>>> >>>> 6. Vijay Iyer on Music & Science >> 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
