[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[markhsmit]

H Platt,
Thanks for your summary.

I think I would tend to agree with you that Consciousness is
the Ground of being, without getting into semantics about
what that means.  This brings to my mind the "Nature
of the Ground", a chapter in Aldous Huxley's book " The
Perennial Philosophy" (always a joy to read).  In this 
treatment of such a Ground, Huxley describes it as
"eternally complete consciousness".  What is interesting
is that many writers which Huxley cites, compare this to God
(whatever that word may mean to them).  Eckhart (the real one)
describes this as the "Divine Ground".  If one is to strip away
all the dogmatic and controlling parts of a man-made God,
it could be that we are left with Consciousness.

Borrowing from the Perennial Philosophy again, Eckhart
writes, "thou must love God as not-God, not Spirit, not person,
not image, but as He is, a pure absolute One, sundered
from all two-ness, in whom we must sink from nothingness to
nothingness."  Huxley then goes on to state: "What Eckhart describes
as the pure One, the Absolute nothing God... is called in Mahayana 
Buddhism the Clear Light of the Void".

Believe me, I do not worship some external deity, and use such
writings simply to understand Consciousness.  I don't
want others consider what I am writing as some religious
drivel.  The connotations of God are severe indeed, to the point
where people claim they are atheist without knowing what the
feeling of God is.  That is, God in a metaphysical context.

Where I get stuck is where does personal consciousness
 come in?   At some point, it seems to me that this Consciousness gets
 divided up. This may be called an illusion by some, but it's one hell of an
illusion! 

Cheers,

Willblake2


On Aug 14, 2009, at 6:46:54 PM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
From:   plattholden at gmail.com
Subject:    Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?)
Date:   August 14, 2009 6:46:54 PM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Andre, Bo, Ham, Willblake, John, All:

Interesting reactions and responses to my queries about consciousness 
and how it's presented, treated and interpreted with the MOQ as the 
primary reference.

First, from Andre came perhaps the most definitive Pirsig quote on the 
subject:

"At the time we are aware of millions of things around us...aware of 
these
things but not really conscious of them unless there is something 
unusual or
unless they reflect something we are predisposed to see. We could not
possibly be conscious of these things and remember all of them 
because our
mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to think. 
From
all this awareness we must select, and what we select and call 
consciousness
is never the same as the awareness because the process of selection 
mutates
it. We take a handfull of sand from the endless landscape of awareness
around us and call that handfull of sand the world.
"Once we have the handful of sand, the world of which we are 
conscious, a
process of discrimination goes to work on it. This is the knife." ZAMM (p 
75).
'Classical understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for
sorting and interrelating them'' (the Aristotelian, dialectical method and
classification?). Romantic understanding is directed toward the handfull 
of
sand before the sorting begins' (note this is separated from the 'endless
landscape') (ibid,p76)

So for Pirsig, consciousness is a biological selection mechanism 
operating within a background of awareness described metaphorically as 
an "endless landscape." (Note that "experience" is not mentioned.)

Secondly, Bo views consciousness as "a direct product of S/O," citing 
Descartes as originator of the mind (consciousness) /matter division. As 
such, consciousness is firmly ensconced in the intellectual level as is 
awareness, both being intractably subjective.The metaphor of 
an"endless landscape" of ZAMM becomes an "aesthetic continuum" in 
Lila. Previously Bo has waxed metaphorical, referring to all embracing 
ocean while we necessarily focus on the waves. (See a similar metaphor 
from Pirsig below.)

Thirdly, Ham the Idealist quotes extensively from Donald Hoffman who 
expands on the Idealist's belief that nothing exists until consciously 
perceived. He proposes that an existence, independent of your personal 
observation, is maintained by "systems of conscious agents." Thus, for 
Hoffman (and presumably Ham) "Consciousness is fundamental in the 
universe, not a fitfully emerging newcomer." Though I don't understand 
Ham's concept of a "negate" or "nothingness," I guess his metaphor for 
consciousness is a "cosmic void."

Fourthly, John Carl reflects Pirsig's view that consciousness and 
selection (choice) are intimately connected and adds to that mix the idea 
of "self" as the "self-evident choice of consciousness." Thus self is real 
but the contents of self (consciousness) are illusory. John cautions us 
not to take his current thinking as his final word on the subject, 
suggesting tentatively that perhaps DQ is a "meta-consciousness." He 
agrees with Ham that the selection mechanism of consciousness 
presupposes values and likes Ham's description of the process as 
"value sensibility." 

Finally, Willblake2 says consciousness is NOT the same as experience. 
It's what's behind experience -- the "I" (self) of experience as it were. 
Metaphorically, Willblake2 compares consciousness to "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 
consciousness itself." 

A couple of conclusions. With the possible exception of Ham, no one is 
willing to say that consciousness is the ground of being. Behind 
consciousness is something else that can only be described 
metaphorically, never definitively In Lila, for example, there's this 
passage:

"He stopped for a second by the beach and just stared at the endless 
procession of waves moving slowly in from the horizon.
The south wind was stronger here and it cooled him. It was steady, like a 
trade wind. Nothing interfered with its flow toward him over the huge 
ocean. 'Vast emptiness and nothing sacred.' If ever there was a visible 
concrete metaphor for Dynamic Quality this was it." (Lila, 32)

Everyone seems to agree that consciousness per se is not the end all 
and be all. There is a mysterious something behind and/or beyond 
supporting it. What that something is we can only obliquely surmise. As 
the quantum physicist Eddington exclaimed:

"Something unknown is doing we don't know what -- that is what our 
theory amounts to. It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I 
have read something like it elsewhere --

. . . The slithy toves,
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

A pretty good definition of DQ I'd say -- toves finding value in the wabe. 

My other conclusion is simply that Bo is right -- consciousness belongs 
in the intellectual level. It's the "mind" of the mind/matter split. Pirsig 
says so himself. Note 32 of LC: 

"Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e., intellectual patterns) . . 
." and then adds, "A question arises if the term 'consciousness' is 
expanded to mean 'intuition' or 'mystic awareness.' Then computers are 
shut out by the fact that static patterns do not create Dynamic quality."

Since all respondents to my inquiry exhibit "intuition" of something 
transcending consciousness -- and by implication something surpassing 
the intellectual level -- they can be said, unlike some self-appointed 
"intellectuals" here who will remain nameless, to be DQ creators.

Thanks for your responses. If I've misrepresented anyone's ideas, I 
apologize in advance.

Regards,
Platt 


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/