[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[Scott Roberts]

Case,

You complain that I am vague about consciousness. In your last post you 
asked several questions about how I think about consciousness, which I 
answered. That's all I can do. I am vague about consciousness, for the same 
reason that Pirsig is vague about Quality -- it's the nature of the beast. 
Although Pirsig and I have our differences, we both take mysticism 
seriously, and you don't. So be it.

You say that the logic of contradictory identity is nonsense, and of course 
it is to a positivist, Aristotelian like yourself. Again, so be it. But it 
isn't nonsense to Merrell-Wolff:

"While in the State [of High Indifference, as he called it], I was 
particularly impressed with the fact that the logical principle of 
contradiction had no relevancy. It would not be correct to say that this 
principle was violated, but rather, that it had no application. For to 
isolate any phase of the State was to be immediately aware of the opposite 
phase as the necessary complementary part of the first. Thus the attempt of 
self-conscious thought to isolate anything resulted in the immediate
initiation of a sort of flow in the very essence of consciousness itself, so 
that the nascent isolation was transformed into its opposite as co-partner 
in a timeless reality....It seemed to be the real underlying fact of all 
consciousness of all creatures." [Experience and Philosophy, p.286]"

I'll also quote Goethe: "One is only truly thinking when that which one 
thinks cannot be thought through".

If this sort of thing has no place in your reality, that's too bad.

It is also too bad that you, like Mark Maxwell, have taken to making 
insinuations of base psychological motives on my part. That does nothing but 
add heat to a discussion. But -- given the fundamental differences noted 
above -- this discussion was obviously going nowhere anyway.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at ispots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ


Ian and Scott,
Sorry guys I am a bit out of the loop, what with the holidays and work.
Mostly lurking these day but chiming in when the frustration gets out of
control...

Ian said:
In the other thread you said: We work within the concepts of causality,
space, and time in going about our daily business, and science is part of
that daily business.
But that all breaks down if we start asking about value (or consciousness or
intellect). It also breaks down in quantum physics.This means that we can't
explain the appearance of the macrocosmic world (that is, perception) in
terms of spatiotemporal causality. This means that science is the wrong tool
for studying perception.

In this thread you also referred (positively) to Samuel Avery's "The
Dimensional Structure of Consciousness: A Physical Basis for Immaterialism."

I say you can't have it both ways. Our problem here is merely linguistic.
Elsewhere in these threads you are taking an arrogant view that your
mystical revolution in thought is more revolutionary than mine. Have you
read how to win friends and influence people :-)

Scott:
Avery's book is a description of perception working with the assumption that
spacetime is produced by consciousness (in the act of perception), rather
than consciousness/perception being something produced in spacetime. His
"physical basis" is referring to working with "what is going on" in the
quantum world: probability waves, non-locality, etc. What he says, as he
acknowledges, is not science. It is an interpretation of quantum physics,
showing how quantum physics, as opposed to Newtonian physics, does not
conflict with an immaterialist philosophy, and indeed, supports such a
philosophy.

On "arrogant view". Perhaps. The thing is, I am well acquainted with your
view, having held it myself once upon a time, having read Dennett, studied
cognitive science, and such. It is not at all clear to me that you have
anything but a superficial acquaintance with my view. A couple of posts back
you said:

"So you are saying you don't feel any obligation to explain the existence of
consciousness. That's very brave of you. We're back to blind faith or
suspension of disbelief again."

Which of us is more blind? Have you ever suspended disbelief in the view of
someone like FM-W, for example?

[Case]
Scott continues to cite people on the fringe. My experience has been that
people on that fringe are there for a reason. As your comments below suggest
you seem to think this reason is the blindness of "unimaginative
conservative scientists". While this may on occasion be true, it is more
frequently the case that those on the fringe are there for good reason.
Identifying with them may produce a warm feeling of self righteousness, a
solidarity with the free thinking outcasts, but you are still left out on
the fringe with the whackos.
It is not as though others are not acquainted with mysticism or with
whackos. I personally was converted to materialism by a three year
chimpanzee named Brent. People would be less superficially acquainted with
your views if you would be a bit less cryptic in expounding them. Asking
what consciousness is, what it does and how it came to be, seem perfectly
reasonable questions designed to gain a less superficial view or at least
provide a bit of insight into who is more blind.
So far I am mostly getting that if you make up something vague enough, it
can be offered up as an explanation of anything and everything.

Ian said:
A physical basis for immaterialism, is where I'm coming from. Why can't
physics (science) be the right tool to study perception and consciousness
and quality, and ... whatever. It just needs a revolution in what science is
about, and it's having such a revolution starting a hundred years ago. the
fundamentals of science are ephemeral, ineffable interactions. I'm not
"refusing to accept" the mystical side, I'm just trying to describe it in a
useful way (that won't be rejected by unimaginative conservative
scientists).

Scott:
Science cannot be the right tool because of DQ. Science requires form to
work with, so it can only study SQ. When one brings DQ into the picture --
as we do when considering awareness of form, or value -- science gets left
behind (I know, I'm just repeating my 'taint to your 'tis). Of course,
overall, it is highly relevant, since one does need to study SQ as part of a
larger picture. Goswami's and Avery's books depend on what we've learned
from physics (Goswami is a physicist). Of course, one could redefine science
as any disciplined study whatsoever, but that reduces the value of the word
'science'. It is useful to keep the distinction between what can be tested
in the macroscopic world and what can't.

As I see it, any *useful* description of the "mystical side" is just going
to be rejected by unimaginative conservative scientists. The revolution
required is not one in science but in the most fundamental ways we think
about things. After all, the quantum scientific revolution has happened. Our
debates are over how much other rethinking that should lead to, and as I see
it (here's that arrogance again), you're not rethinking enough. Neither is
Pirsig, for that matter.

[Case]
Science does require that something be put on the table that interested
parties can agree about. This is generally  spacio-temporal but whatever it
is, it must provide some basis for discussion and agreement. Mysticism on
the other hand is a journey inside. Attempts to spell out interior states
have not proven fruitful, the introspectionists come to mind. The validity
of mystical experience is only relevant to the mystic. His conversations
about his experiences can only aim to point others on the road he has
traveled. To attempt to transpose this inward journey onto the exterior
world is just foolish, as Pirsig notes.
My friend Brent helped me to see that there are not checks and balances in
the inner journey. Nothing to stub your toe upon, nothing to keep you from
wandering in circles. As Pirsig illustrated there is nothing to stop you
from sitting in quiet illumination burning your fingers with cigarettes and
soiling yourself. If that floats your boat, then everybody say, "Amen". But
if you think this will provide insight into the true nature of things, your
gonna have to expect skepticism.
Furthermore, you say: "When one brings DQ into the picture -- as we do when
considering awareness of form, or value -- science gets left behind." But if
you "bring DQ into the picture" aren't you making it static? What are left
with then? It seems a bit like a doctor pronouncing the operation a success
even though the patient died.

Ian said:
I'm agreeing with the ZMM Pirsig that this quality interaction is ineffable.
Obviously I'm interpreting the Lila Pirsig less metaphysically and more
pragmatically that he himself had aspired to, but that's a given.

I still see a massive explanatory gap on your side if you see the
fundamental (pre-material) consciousness as something high-order intelligent
first person subjective awareness (which I know you don't), rather than some
prior-consciousness component (which I suspect you do). And if you don't
like proto-conscioiusness, gimme your word to distinguish it from any
possible misinterpretation I might make of the general term "consciousness".
As I say it still seems the problem really is just linguistic.

You seem to want to claim the word consciousness for your particular
mystical flavour (denotation) of consciousness. I'm not denying this, I'm
just asking for your word for it - so we can keep talking.

Scott:
This is why I insist on using all three words: value, consciousness, and
intellect. Combining them, I say that "the most fundamental" is semiosis,
what Peirce calls 'thirdness', or signification. The problem I have with
"proto-consciousness" is that there is no value at all in being
proto-conscious (actually, I have no idea what 'proto-conscious' might mean,
to me it sounds like "a little bit pregnant", but apparently it means
something to you). There is only value when there is consciousness, which is
to say that an interaction is appreciated (positively or negatively). And
that can only happen if an interaction is appreciatively (consciously)
valued as being a part of some pattern (or, one might say, information),
that it manifests a pattern which might not have been manifested, or
manifests it in one way and not another. All this, I claim, is best
understood as semiosis. A SPOV is best thought of as a concept, and an
interaction as a manifestation of that concept (yet -- and here one gets
into the logic of contradictory identity -- the concept is not independent
of its manifestations.)

Does that help?

[Case]
I can't speak for Ian but that's a negatory from over here. You continue to
talk about consciousness as though it is the generative force for all of
reality on the one hand and what you see if you gaze at your navel on the
other. These things are not the same nor are they the same as value or
intellect in most dictionaries. Value at least as I understand it is almost
entirely traceable to biology and experience. We are attracted to what feels
good and repelled by what does not. With regard to whatever cosmic
implications you think these terms have, it would be nice it you would just
say what they are instead of hinting around. Every time things get dicey you
throw up LoCI. Which, by the way seems, a lot less mysterious as a
definition of nonsense than a principle of logic.
As for semiosis being fundamental; how so? Since signification does not seem
to take place in the absence of people how is it relevant in the vast period
of time in which there were no people? But more to the point what
significance does Consciousness have? What is signified?

[Scott continued]
On the explanatory gap: how much is that demand for explanation a
consequence of SOM? Epistemology arose with SOM, and science's claim to fame
is that  "science explains". But of course scientific explanations are
inherently limited to being redescriptions of one set of physical experience
in terms of another set, combined with mathematics in some cases. Beyond
this, is it still proper to speak of explanations? I raise this as a
pragmatic point, that "explanation" just amounts to redescription, and part
of moving beyond SOM is to redescribe so that the "something to be
explained"/explanation dichotomy becomes, if not erased, at least blurry.

[Case]
The point of redescription is to provide more precise, less blurry,
explanations. I am hard pressed to see how your use of consciousness
accomplishes this. One could as easily ascribe everything in the cosmos to
the interaction of "principalities and powers" as does the Apostle Paul. And
by the way he has you beat in the arrogance department as well.

Ian, could you provide some links to your thoughts on information?

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/