[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Laird Bedore]

'afternoon SA,

>       [Laird]
>   
>> ...but certainly we ARE 
>> conscious of subjects and objects on the
>> intellectual level. Or, we can 
>> choose to speak of consciousness as some
>> undifferentiated emergence from 
>> staticness in general, but doing so arguably has us
>> discussing something 
>> other than the MoQ.
>>     
> [SA]
>      Why does speaking "of consciousness as some
> undifferentiated emergence from staticness... has us
> discussing something other than the MoQ"?  Could you
> elaborate please?
>
>   
[Laird]
The omission of the static levels moves us from MoQ-land to a more 
general brand of empiricism. It could be a very useful discussion, but 
it would no longer be about the MoQ. The MoQ just ain't the MoQ unless 
it's got the levels.


>      [Laird]
>   
>> Another way to look at the Dogen quote is in terms
>> of describing the 
>> static-dynamic continuum, the "sweet 
>> spot"/coherence/balance/pick-a-label often
>> discussed. I find it 
>> intriguing (or at least romantic) to imagine a
>> balance-point of 
>> consciousness where we can experience
>> S/O-nondifferentiation 
>> (intellectually).
>>     
>
> [SA]
>      Once done intellectually, then, everywhere no
> differentiation, right?  At least our perspective
> would be such.
>
>   
[Laird]
Our perspective, precisely. I'm hesitant to say any more because I'd 
probably just be babbling (which I've been told I'm good at!). Heck, I 
might already just be babbling! ;)

>      [Laird]
>   
>> Non-S/O mode(s) of intellect. The
>> analogy of wearing 
>> different intellectual glasses comes to mind again.
>> I think the concept 
>> of S/O distinction as one of many intellectual modes
>> goes further to 
>> show how the MoQ accommodates our wearing of "SOM",
>> "MoQ", "Zen", and 
>> other 'intellectual glasses'.
>>     
>
>      How does S/O distinction (you know that means
> subjects and objects are separated completely) go
> "...further to show how the MoQ
> accommodates...etc..."?   Please elaborate.
>
>   
[Laird]
"Completely" in what sense? separated in an absolute reality, or within 
our heads? Can we fit all these S/O distinctions in our tiny skulls, or 
just some of them? What's the use of the split being "complete"?

The emphasis in my statement should be on "as one of many intellectual 
modes". (the assertion I'm testing is:) S/O-distinction is one mode of 
intellect, one "toolset" of consciousness. This leaves room for other 
such "toolsets". A "Zen" toolset is a very distinct example. The 
metaphor can be interchanged between toolsets, glasses, shoes, etc and 
keep the same meaning.

>      By the way, it is interesting how an awareness
> notices pure object 'Tree', pure subject 'I', yet,
> this awareness is Zen awareness and MoQ fits in here,
> too.  Thus, pure objective lens according to this Zen
> awareness means everything other than the tree is just
> amidst Nothingness or is amidst this quiet, the same
> for 'I'.  This Nothingness, (this quietness) is
> consciousness as in just see.  Is consciousness seeing
> itself or is consciousness just aware?  I lean towards
> the second one.  Conscious of quiet is just aware, for
> as soon as I'm aware of consciousness or consciousness
> is aware of itself, then it is no longer quiet.
>
>   
[Laird]
In your thought experiment, I think both are possible, and you've 
characterized them both... Consciousness can be just aware and be quiet. 
It can be aware of itself (a split into dualism) and be unquiet. Which 
is better? Whichever is the right tool for the job?

In an only faintly related thought (gotta write it down before I forget 
it)... splitting levels 1/2 into objective and 3/4 into subjective has a 
key problem: it doesn't accommodate abstraction, recursion, symbol 
manipulation... I (subject) can think about and understand the law of 
gravity (object), but the law of gravity is an intellectual pattern and 
classified in subjective reality. But it can obviously be treated as an 
object too, and the 1/2 vs 3/4 split doesn't jive with that.

-Laird