[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/14/09 9:39 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

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
 
Hi Willblake2 and all,

I do not know what your personal view is about evolution.  Imho
³consciousness² is evolution to the social level. Musing strictly from the
seat of my pants, I prefer evolution to the social level to be the awareness
past sex that something might happen that requires my attention.  For me I
see it as a new involvement to want to care for an offspring as a
responsibility.  I call this social impulse,  emotion.  This is the bedrock
of social involvement.

This is a step up from primate behavior.  Over the eons this emotional need
translated into social behavior and elected officials, which is quite
different from primate behavior.   Now it is more difficult to separate
consciousness of social behavior, from ³consciousness² of doing my political
duties, a blurring of the line between evolution from a conscious social
(emotional) behavior and conscious intellectual behavior.  One of the major
differences is the speed and confidence that social consciousness does not
require time spent in a university before I could get married.   The
intellectual level enhances the consciousness of the social level.

Joe

> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/