[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[markhsmit]

Hi Bodvar,

In your description of Western philosophy, you might be right about
Descartes, I am no expert. However the notion of mind and consciousness
is at the core of much Hindu thought, as described in the Vedas.  In fact
Buddhism draws heavily on this.  This in no way diminishes what you
are postulating, only that the notion has been around for some time.

Whenever one uses equalities, it leaves one open to interpretation
through semantics, but I think I see what you mean.  Also, in
math and science, equalities usually require some kind of constant
with units that make the two equalities the same.  For example the
equality of mass to energy.  Mass is in Grams and energy is in Joules
(for example) so a factor must be introduced with appropriate units
of conversion.  I'm not sure what the units are in Quality and 
Consciousness, so I wouldn't know what that factor would be.

Where I differ from you is the notion that consciousness is experience.
That is not to say that consciousness does not experience, it most
certainly does.  If consciousness is that individual "I" which is
behind us all, then it exists without experience.  By way of metaphor,
Consciousness is the page of a book.  It is the white background.  On
that page there are words, sentences, feelings,  experiences.  
One must not confuse the writing for the Consciousness itself.

Of course, this is just my interpretation.

I have found many mistakes and prejudices in Wikipedia, and prefer
not to use it as a source for metaphysical support, but that's
just me.

Cheers,

Willblake2

On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:35:08 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    [MD] Consciousness (explained?)
Date:   August 12, 2009 3:35:08 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Platt, John, DMB, Anthony, Descartes ;-) All.

Platt will possibly remember the early days of the Lila Squad how 
some Zohar book "The Quantum Self" created a stir by he assertion 
that the site of consciousness had been found in the "Einstein Bose 
Condensate" (I guess it was our quantum buff Doug Renselle) Before 
that it was Hammeroff with his "microtubulae" which is some sub- 
atomic structures in the brain. This expresses science's (SOM's) vain 
yet indestructible hope that mind and matter will meet at some point. 
And also that its a wrong track to think that the MOQ has some 
affinities with Quantum Physics, NewAge or New Physics ... or that 
philosophical idealism is the stepping stone to the MOQ. 

According to the MOQ all levels will "meet" their parent level if 
pursued deep/far enough, thus intellect (SOM, science) will not find 
the mind/matter bridge but the intellect/social one. I leave that point, 
but is treated most convincingly in LILA and when I reach 
"civilization" and my home computer I will bring the quotes which 
shows that Pirsig really is the same Phaedrus who wrote ZAMM and 
postulated that the intellectual level is supposed to be SOM, but was 
side-tracked by W.James) that led to the mind-intellect that "our" 
academics savor, but leaves the MOQ impotent.

Now, from the SOM = intellect premises, i.e. that ZAMM's description 
of SOM is the 4th. level's emergence from the 3rd. the picture that 
emerges is that the subject/object split evolved by fits and starts up 
through the centuries and millennias. At first it was the "permanent" 
(objective) versus the "apparent" (as it looks to us subjectively) with 
Aristotle the permanent had become "substance vs form". Its Pirsig's 
assertion that S/O became a metaphysical with Descartes: A spiritual 
mind that inhabited a matterish body. A century and shortly 
afterwards the empiricist started to point out the problems of this 
constellation, that the qualities were created by the subject, the "out 
there" were without qualities.

And it's plain that "consciousness" is a direct product of the S/O: 
>From Wikipedia: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)

A generally well-known version of dualism is attributed to 
René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a 
nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly 
identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and 
to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of 
intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind-
body problem in the form in which it exists today. 

and it's also clear that Pirsig is the first EVER philosopher (since the 
instigators of SOM) to deliver a "solution" with his MOQ, but even 
plainer is it that MOQ's capacity resides in the SOM = intellect. If the 
4th.level merely is the Cartesian "mind", with SOM a faulty mind 
pattern and the MOQ a better ditto nothing is gained (besides being 
absurd) The MOQ overturns the whole bl..dy Aristotelian 
metaphysical table by its Dynamic/Static split. And now this split must 
be a new fundamental. Pirsig's Quality/MOQ is as damaging as 
DMB's Quality/Concept variety. 

Platt wrote:
> Bo hints that the original MOQ as described in ZAMM dissolves the
> mind/matter enigma. But how? By making it a static level within the
> umbrella of the MOQ? OK. 

Very OK!

> Does that make the DQ of the MOQ
> consciousness itself? In Lila Pirsig says Quality is experience and
> experience is value. Is consciousness the same as experience? Frankly,
> I don't see a difference. So that would make Quality=Consciousness. 

We must first of all see the implications of Descartes role (the above 
Wikipedia) Consciousness is a byproduct of SOM, there is no 
indications of (as Pirsig said in the letter to Paul Turner) the people of 
old were "conscious" of having a consciousness - i.e. that their 
experience of the world weren't THE world. Pirsig said that "the old 
books of the Bible showed no intellectuality" but one may point to 
more recent texts and find no awe about "consciousness" and/or 
wonder where it resides in the body. . 

John said:
> Here is something you've been explaining for a long time, and yet
> somehow I've had great difficulty in following you. But as I've gone
> along and investigated the MoQ on my own, I've found myself at times
> starting to come to some conclusions which have made me think, "This
> sounds like what Bodvar has been asserting." So we shall see where my
> rollercoaster train of thought leads and if I end up on the same
> track.

Good! Hope this "essay" brings you some insight. I'm not out to create 
factions in this forum, but it's hard not to condemn DMB as the 
spanner in the MOQ works. Anthony McWatt I don't know if is so 
adamant in declaring this true SOL interpretation heresy, but his 
PhD's description of MOQ's intellectual level as one of "ideas" is just 
as faulty and misleading. 

In my interpretation, but I still have to find a flaw in it.

Bodvar 








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/