ROGER FINDS RICH'S Q'S INTRIGUING AND OFFERS SOME IDEAS
Roger:
Rich, thanks for sharing the Power of Brahman. The Maya seems to correlate
well with James' subject/object consciousness duality derived from direct
experience.
Rich:
>the world, from the standpoint of reason or subject/object
>consciousness, is neither real nor unreal; the world is an illusion only on
>the basis of an experience of the Absolute. The world cannot be an illusion
>to one who lacks that experience. Empirical reality, in other words, is
>transcended only absolutely. Only from the viewpoint of the infinite does
>everything but itself appear as without substance, without independent
>reality and value.
Roger:
And so we get a dim glance at what the true trancendantal consciousness is.
I am not sure we are going to get any closer though in this forum. Our
journey will be much more personal and direct.
Rich:
>I have yet to see a
>satisfactory exposition of the place of consciousness in the MoQ.
Rog:
If I am not mistaken, Pirsig pretty much avoids this word in the MOQ. I think
the appropriate terms that best match your transcendental definition are
Direct Experience or DQ. If this is the case, it is clarified extensively.
Do you agree with me on this point though?
Rich:
>The idea of "transcendence" is a dominating one in the East. Does it apply
>in the MoQ?
Rog:
Considering it is an evolutionary metaphysics, I would offer that
transcendence is implicit. The pursuit of DQ is Pirsig's label for the path
that is not a path.
Rich:
>Just what exactly do you mean by "Experience", which is before your body or
>mind each moment? How do you know it's there?
Rog:
This is an odd Q. How do we know anything else is there? Pure preconceptual
experience is the one thing that we cannot deny. It is THIS.
Rich:
>Are social patterns and thoughts the same as consciousness? If not, and
>"you" are conscious of the four levels "you" inhabit, are you then different
>from that consciousness, that body, that mind? Don't tell me the
>intellectual level perceives that I'm falling off a cliff, getting laid,
>etc... Yet I certainly "experienced" these things. They were more or less
>"conscious", yes?
Rog:
I see you weaving widely disparate definitions of consciousness into one
paragraph. You start with the consciousness created by Maya (to try to use
your terms). The world of a distinct little editor of social standing and
thoughts and desire and will. Then IMHO you begin to shift to pure experience
(falling off cliffs and getting laid). The Direct Experience is the
transcentental consciousness. But the definitions and labels and the derived
'I' are just more creations of Maya.
Rich:
>If "I" am nothing but a "coherence" of patterns of value, how exactly do
>they "cohere"? How is communication between levels possible, if they are
>"discrete...almost independent"?
Rog:
I have absolutely no idea how they cohere. But the coherence of patterns is
what we consider ourselves and the world around us. Anybody got any ideas
here?
As for communications between levels. I think the answer is MU. The
question was wrong. The static levels are intellectual constructs derived
from experience. The real question is "how do EXPERIENCES cohere?" or
perhaps "How are coherent patterns built out of Experience?"
Rich:
>Where do emotions fit in?
Rog:
I read a book a month or two ago on a cognitive psychologist's view of, among
other things, emotion. She stated that behavioral scientists and lay people
both approach the issue of emotions with massive levels of false notions.
There really is no clear distinct difference between emotions and other
biological responses. Emotions are biological responses to our environment.
There is definitely an internal "consciousness" side to this experience that
we differentiate from other non-emotional responses as breathing or falling
or digestion. However, she suggests the clear scientific delineation of
emotions is folly.
Rich:
>What is memory? (you have before you rationalize/philosophize), a dog has
>it, prior to the "age of the IPOV".
Rog:
Last month I suggested that sq is derived from DQ like echoes are derived
from shouting into a canyon. Complex biological patterns seem to have
developed ways to recreate faint, pale shadows of Direct Experience (via
neurological recreation). Your memories and all static patterns are frozen
versions of Pure Experience. William James says as much in Radical
Empiricism. These thoughts are themselves directly experienced via thinking.
But the copying process is woefully inadequate compared to the original
experience.
If this is true, there is only DQ, and sq and the illusory world created from
Maya are just dim DQ echoes.
But again, I could be wrong
Roger
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
