Ooops... Here is the correct url for The Consciousness Chronicles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBo3h3-WrLM On Nov 8, 2012, at 4:16 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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 >>> >>> >>> snip 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
