[MD] Consciousness

[kieffer odigaunt]

KO calls BO,

2008/12/24 <skutvik at online.no>

> BO calling KO
>
> Mon Dec.
>
> Bo before:
> > > Consciousness is a "unassimiled" concept like Beauty, Intuition,
> > > Essence and Aesthetics (Art), out of each a MOQ-like metaphysics
> > > may have been constructed.
>
> KO:
> > 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?
>
>

> Much can be said here, but I repeat that there are some grand
> concepts besides Quality that are all or nothing at all. Take "language",
> one way seen nothing exists outside it, even trying to point out non-
> linguistic realities is conveyed by language. This goes for
> "consciousness" as well, without it there's nothing at all, so my
> assertion still isl that one must find their places inside the  MOQ or
> similar metaphysics (to the MOQ) can be built on them,.


Agreed - solypsistic; i think such philosophies deficient - because they
ignore the fact that language, consciousness is derived from something else.


>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, when examined all these limitations, but THE HOLY
> CONSCIOUSNESS is not supposed to have stages or being
> diminished. it's an absolute.


Consciousness is its content, as Krishnamurti says.
I think yes - if anything is sacred it is the sense of self - that is what
we all seek to enhance. Only our way of doing that is topsy-turvy - we try
too hard.


> Bo before:
> > > 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?
>
> May we shift to "awareness"?
>
> An example of a Metaphysics of Awareness (MOA) is based on
> awareness as reality's ground and this awareness is not part of
> humankind or its brain,


true, it is a property of other animals, but a again a rock? Awareness is at
its most keen in the human brain as far as we know!


> it's  like Pirsig's Quality which (he claims) is
> something beyond humankind, thus it's not a question about self-
> aware rocks, but awareness OF rocks. The first stage of this MOA is
> static inorganic awareness.
>

Man aware of rocks? Pirsig leans towards his first split of Mind and Matter
and says Mind is our projected nature so let us build our metaphysics there!


>
> You understand if compared to the MOQ where a rock isn't substance
> WITH quality, but "static inorganic quality", likewise the rock (in a
> MOA) isn't substance WITH awareness but "static inorganic
> awareness". This was just an example of how MOQ copies can can be
> made, but Pirsig's original MOQ is best, let that be said.
>

Cool! Agree. But neither consciousness or awareness can control - they are
responses, effects rather than causes.


>
> KO:
> > Take the clause mentioning consciousness out and i agree.
>
> >From my lectures above you may understand? Like the MOQ
> postulates a disembodied Quality, a MOA postulates a disembodied
> Awareness without any connection to man, brain or anything. If you
> protest this you may as well protest Pirsig's Quality,


I protest your use of certain words: postulates! The self is a utility. The
MoQ is by man for man. MoQ recognises the idea of betterness. We see its
effect all around us. Also, I see no reason to say that quality is
disembodied. Quality does exist outside of man especially in other animals
and it is intrinsic wherever we see its residue in all the things around us.
But quality is not something apart from all the things we see.

there obviously is no quality without a human being to decide what's good.


Quality as man sees it: i repeat, the MoQ is by man for man.


> And in that case we have MAN as realitys ground, and a Metaphysics of Man
> (MOM) is called for ... and if a copy of the MOQ - fine! It's the
> dynamic/static divide plus static levels - that counts.


Yes, agree - it is for man - we are the gardeners, the weeders! I like a
metaphysics for man, intended by man.

>
>
> An aside: In ZAMM Pirsig actually started on a metaphysics with Man
> (the Measure of all things) as realitys ground and I believe it's here that
> Ham still is.
>
> 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.
>
> Bo
> > > Sounds like we agree KO, at least as I see it "the individual" as
> > > carrier of consciousness is intellect's invention.
>
> KO:
> > 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.
>
> Don't you see that it's intellect that looks down on the social level and
> sees this about "being aware about a religious thought"?. The religious
> ceremony itself is not about being aware about being aware, it's about
> getting in touch with the "X" that governs existence. Likewise
> everything about memory, mental images, brain ...etc. is intellect's
> business so my assertion still stands: Awareness (inside the MOQ that
> is!)  is intellect's "invention". If removed from the MOQ it's the
> candidate for a MOA.
>
> Merry Christmas to you Kieffer.
>
> Bo
>

Happy New Year! Yours is one way of looking at it, Bo. But i think Pirsig
recognised that we cannot walk through walls; we are built in this way - the
world appears to us as mind and matter - inextricably linked! MoQ is
designed to form a moral framework for man and the individual is necessarily
at the centre of that philosophy.

-KO