[MD] Where does the MOQ belong?

[Akshay Peshwe]

Bo,

Thanks a lot for the good welcome. When you say "value consciousness", what
exactly do you mean? I'm sorry, but I somehow feel that the value
consciousness you attribute to human awareness is not as simple as that
name. Permit me to speculate:

1. The only problem with all this mind-matter confusion is the assumption
that mind cannot arise from matter. Assumptions can be dangerous!

2. What exactly is this God-like ability to watch over things that happen?
"I" am not my emotions or thoughts. It'd make sense to agree with Hume here
-- a subjective reality. But the problem is that this awareness keeps
changing. What about when I'm lucid dreaming? When I'm asleep? Where does
that awareness go? Why? I suppose even during sleep, one can solve a math
problem, which will be intellectual patterns of static quality. Then what is
consciousness?


Akshay

On 4/1/07, skutvik at online.no <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
> Hello Akshay, welcome to the MD.
>
> On 1 Apr.you wrote:
>
> > I believe a book on philosophy is purely an inorganic pattern of
> > static quality.
>
> Yes, that much we all agree on.
>
> > However, it seems to be at the intellectual level
> > because it is stimulating an intellectual pattern.
>
> Well, the intellectual level and the term "intellect" (as generally
> used) may not align perfectly: The former is the ability to
> distinguish between what's subjective and what's objective (S/O)
> while the latter, to most people, seem to indicate intelligence, and
> it seems plain impossible to bring them out of their "trance"
>
> > The papers are not,
> > per se, intellectual patterns -- for a person who didn't know about
> > books but did have stable intellectual patterns wouldn't recognize the
> > book as intellectual patterns.
>
> An illiterate person may recognize the difference  between
> concepts and what they conceptualize, but to Magnus concepts
> themselves (diagrams, theories, words spoken or printed) is
> "intellect". And my point is that ancient (social age) people did not
> value this distinction. Language was not yet an abstraction,
> different from the concrete world, but a powerful means to invoke
> the forces that ruled existence. The Ancients I speak of were
> from long before written language and as such "illiterate", but the
> point is that they had not stepped into the intellectual - S/O
> distinction - reality.
>
> > I do however have doubt as to where we can put consciousness or
> > awareness. That "feeling" of awareness. I suppose it could be
> > classified as intellectual, but aren't there humans who hardly have
> > any intellectual patterns, being based predominantly in social
> > patterns, but are still conscious?
>
> You are just right, join the SOL club!
>
> > Probably consciousness means the
> > ability to analyse one's condition, which is a characteristic of
> > intellectual patterns. But what about "raw" consciousness -- the
> > consciousness that tells someone "I am Peter"?
>
> Consciousness is one of SOM's "unassimilated" concepts (all of
> which Value encompasses) it's all or nothing at all. Thus there is
> no consciousness in the MOQ other than "value awareness".
> The detached, analytical attitude is intellect's
> "value/consciousness" while the sense of being a person - with a
> name - is ancient, possibly something that emerged with
> language.  I must think a bit more here.
>
> > I'm a new member, and a teenager, so I'd request you to forgive my
> > ignorance... I'm really enjoying the forums right now. Thanks
> > everyone!
>
> A most promising entry.
>
> IMO
>
> Bo
>
>
>
> 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/
>