[MD] Just coincidence?

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, Peter (also Joseph and Arlo) --


You quoted Joseph as saying:

> Mind is of the individual and has no possibility
> of affecting anyone but the thinker.

I feel for Joseph.  He's apparently incapable of impressing anyone,
enlightening anyone, or creating anything that would improve another's life.

You replied to Joseph:

> In a way I would say there is no mind; like space
> and time it is a convention. Perhaps 'mind' is,
> or is part of, the 'nothingness' that Ham Priday
> pushes elsewhere on moqtalk.  When people use
> the word 'I' they are referring to a momentary
> impression of mind; it is the most intimate part of
> me, more 'me' than my hand. And yet it is illusory.

Arlo chimes in with his own definition:

> Our "mind" is the internal appropriation of the collective mythos.

Why do you define mind as a "convention" or "myth" when it is the awareness
of everything you experience?   To me, that's carrying reductionism to an
extreme.

MoQ's author acknowledges that experience is what creates man's reality.
Without your mind, how could you experience?

Granted, mind (proprietary awareness) is incapable of quantification or
localization.  That means it doesn't have physical being, not that it isn't
"real".  In fact, awareness and its contents ARE your reality.  Everything
else is an otherness to you -- an intellectual construct of your mind.

Not even the most die-hard materialist would surrender his mind for the good
of the world.  He clings to it as his most valuable asset.  And so do you.
You are the subject of this world.  Your proprietary awareness is your real
self; without it you and your world would cease to exist.

I suggest that you all reconsider the worth of your respective "individual"
minds.

Regards,
Ham