[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Gene, Peter, et al --


On 6/24/06, Peter Corteen <psigenics at googlemail.com> asked:
> If 'I' is illusory then how can it be part of reality?

The subject 'I' and the object 'experience of reality' are the necessary
contingencies of the dichotomy called 'existence'.  It is the dichotomy
itself that is illusory, in the sense that it is not the true Reality.

In an earlier 6/24 message, Peter said something that could be quite useful
in clearing up the enigmatic 'I':

> I think an 'I' is always implied, inferred, superimposed or assumed by
> consciousness. It reminds me of how 'zero' is a useful convention in
> mathematics; maths is possible without zero but is so much more useful
> with it. During periods of strong engagement with a task the sense of 'I'
> is not present and thinking can continue without 'I'.

I like that analogy because I've said that experience is a "zero-point"
perspective of reality.  And 'I' is the zero.  Self-awareness is literally
nothing (zero) until it becomes conscious of something (1 to infinity).
When this occurs, nothingness in effect makes 'being-aware' in
consciousness.  I submit that 'zero' is more than a useful convention.  It
may not be essential to mathematics, inasmuch as zero is not part of the
numeric series 1 to infinity, but it is essential to metaphysics because we
have to deal with nothingness.

I also like what Gene said about illusion:

Gene:
> Every illusion is part of Reality. If someone creates a hologram, it's an
> illusion, not the real object, yet if you tried to convince someone it was
> not part of Reality they'd laugh to tears. It's right there, they can see
> it. Sure it's an illusion, but the illusion Exists. It's Real. It just
isn't
> what you think it is.

Yes.  Reality is not what we think it us.  For one thing, it is not a
subject/object dichotomy like everything that exists.  It doesn't emerge,
evolve, and then disappear from existence.  And, unlike consciousness, it
does not have to be created, and it needs no "other" for self-awareness.

The problem for you folks is that you want to make existence your illusion,
and this leaves you nowhere.  Aren't Quality and Morality part of this
illusion, just as the Individual is?  If all is an illusion, then you're
faced with the question: What causes it?  That of course takes you beyond
the natural world, and no good MoQer gives credence to a Supernatural
Creator.  "All is vanity" is the nihilist's credo, but I'm told the MoQ is
not nihilism.

OK, I tried this once before, but I guess I'm game for another round of
"Pirsig says".  How does he resolve the primary cause?   And please don't
quote me the line about Quality being the "primary empirical reality".
That's just a cop-out.

Regards,
Ham