[MD] Consciousness

[kieffer odigaunt]

Hi Bo

2008/12/21 <skutvik at online.no>

> Nice to meet you Kieffer
>

good to hear from you again too, Bo.


>
> Particularly as you wrote on 20 Dec. after DMB had written
>
> > > I like to imagine that the whole history of the universe IS the
> > > history of consciousness. I like to imagine that consciousness did
> > > not emerge at some point but rather that it was always present and
> > > that it has been a coconspirator since the big bang and has grown
> > > simultaneously with the physical structures.
>
> KO
> > This sounds like Ham's Essence; something not detectable, not a thing
> > - could it in fact be merely your own desparate invention borne of
> > your struggle to understand.
>
> You bet it sounds like Ham, because he is like the early Phaedrus with
> Essence=Quality and then his Differentiated Essence that only has
> one stage Consciousness of  a World..
>

Is a good few years since I read ZAMM - have to admit I do not recall the
early Phaedrus talking about quality in this way. Pirsig's writings are a
seductive collection of ideas open to wide interpretation.
Are you saying Bo, that the early Phaedrus considered an utterly spiritual
and conscious source of everything?


> > > Seen this way, the qualitative shift from one level to the next IS a
> > > shift in consciousness. The higher levels display an increased
> > > complexity and capacity for freedom but this is purchased at a
> > > price. When ego consciousness dominates or even excludes all other
> > > sorts of consciousness, as it usually does in our time a culture, a
> > > kind of dissociation or alienation occurs.
>
> Consciousness is a "unassimiled" concept like Beauty, Intuition,
> Essence and Aesthetics (Art), out of each a MOQ-like metaphysics
> may have been constructed.


Nice idea Bo, but i am not sure about: consciousness is an unassimilated
concept. You mean by 'unassimilted' that it is not directly from
impressions? I see consciousness as a feeling i get when i say 'I';
Consciousness is subjectivity. It is very much affected by brain acitivity.
There are different states of consciousness including states when the sense
of self diminishes, like when engaged in creative activities.


> In consciousness case the first axiom is
> "Consciousness=Reality", then Dynamic/Static Consciousness and the
> known static consciousness levels.


No cant agree: reality includes everything there is at this moment.
Consciousness is it's content and that content does not include everything.
A rock has no sense of self.
Don't you agree?


> This is fine but after Quality is
> chosen  *****it's poison to start speaking about consciousness***, there
> are
> only the various levels' perception of Quality.
>

Take the clause mentioning consciousness out and i agree.


>
> KO:
> > The individual has its place because that is the vehicle, the state of
> > the art; there is no consciousness inside of it however; only a
> > wonderful projection that by convention we call self consciousness.
>
> Sounds like we agree KO, at least as I see it "the individual" as carrier
> of consciousness is intellect's invention.


No, cannot agree: consciousness is not only intellects invention, there is
the social component also. We can be conscious of a thought about a
religious ceremony; the brain informs memory and memory is a component of
consciousness. When people say they are conscious they refer by consensus to
a mental image and so for me the domain of consciousness is the whole of
mind including both intellectual and social; sorry to disappoint you.


> There were and still is
> persons at the social level with name, property and each an every
> individual qualities, but in the "man" sense that so many use it's an
> hoax.


For me its a hoax in the sense that most people think consciousness is a
disembodied spirit inside us that will persist after death, or even  worse,
the follow on dillusion that consciousness is something like the holy ghost.


>
>
> > Yes, it does all seem like the way you say DMB, but it does not hold
> > water really as you will forever be chasing your tail and people will
> > inevitably take one step further and fall in with religion and the all
> > the baggage that goes along with that.
>
> I can only say "Hark ye all"!  Do we really have a true MOQ-ist among
> us?
>

I think we concur on somethings Bo; in general we are sitting on the same
fence but that intellect is SOM/SOL ? - it definitely has its merits and i
think your idea shows the flexibilty of the MoQ - yours is an evolutionary
model of the MoQ but i think the Lila model more fundamental and inclusive.

-KO