[MD] Mind-body practice

[Dwaipayan Lahiri]

Hi Bo,

>
>> I see what you mean. If that is the case, then what is the mind?
>
> Well it sort of follows from the said assertion that mind is nothing
> in itself but part of the mind/matter AGGREGATE - that goes for
> all intellect's dichotomies, you can't have one without the other,
> but intellect as SOM (before it became a static level) has
> succeeded in making us believe that there are two separate
> realms that interact in some mysterious way.
>

If the mind/matter aggregate is the mind, then what is matter?
Is there a distinction at all in such a case (between mind and matter)?


> OK, maybe you will accept this generally, but the term
> "consciousness" is (in English at least) a more holier variety of
> mind, seemingly without an "objective" counterpart, but I will
> suggest that the reality (we are conscious of) is the said
> counterpart. The point is that few will admit that intellect has
> created the consciousness/reality duality too. It looks like intellect
> ITSELF.
>

Is it really? In general terms (as we understand it today in the  
West), Consciousness is a property of the mind, is it not?
Hmm...in other words, the sensory data that is available to a human  
being, is interpreted to conform to a set of rules (let us not talk  
about where those rules come from, for sake of brevity) -- that  
becomes the human being's reality.

I am often led to the anecdote about how Native Americans couldn't  
really see the Ships that Columbus and his group of invaders arrived  
in, the first time they arrived on the shores of what is today  
America. Such incidents (if it did happen) do tend to lend credence  
to the "socio-cultural" aspect of reality making, do they not?

To bring forth a different perspective on Consciousness, I will start  
introducing terms from the Indic systems gradually. Perhaps they will  
help us understand what it is that I was trying to convey.

> Consciousness seems to the be stronghold of intellect, it may
> give up its outer defenses, "soul" has long since gone and it may
> admit that there aren't watertight bulkheads between its dualities,
> but the one between consciousness and what it is conscious of
> seems watertight & shockproof. Yet, I have the (following)
> example that proves that consciousness isn't confined to
> humankind the allegedly only conscious being.
>
> Almost all creatures sleep (even fish it's said) so waking up must
> be to state different from oblivion - and animal  consciousness.
> The nineteenth century spoke about a slumber-like state
> regarding animals, but they are much more aware than we need
> to be.
>
> Then only self-consciousness remains as intellect's innermost
> citadel; the God's-eye view of reality, and self-consciousness IS
> intellect's definition of itself (as SOM) But there is the MOQ
> overview and in it intellect has become a mere static level and
> hasn't got any consciousness (this concept is part of the S/O
> metaphysics) the levels' have only  got static value and intellect's
> is the S/O disdinction - in this case that of a self detached from
> the world it lives in.
>

I see. I think we are approaching this topic in a similar manner,  
albeit the vector is different that's all.
I agree that the Intellect is a static level, since it depends on the  
set of rules it needs to make it's reality.
Intellect is artificial.

If that is the case, then it raises the question,

what is that is "conscious"?
What is that has this artificial intellect?


> And as you asked:
>
>> I would like to know more about it (the SOL).
>
> The above IS the SOL.
>
> The rest of our exchange will arrive soon.
>

I appreciate the chance to interact with, and see that there are some  
who are approaching this subject in a manner akin to the philosophers  
that Pirsig alluded to, as opposed to the philosophological system.

Regards,

Dwai