[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Will --


> What I am reading in posts is the description of consciousness
> in the third person.  That is, the presence of consciousness as a
> phenomenon. What my post last week was referring to was the
> "enigmatic self-consciousness" that Bodvar refers to below.
> I have come to understand that such consciousness does not have
> any physical attributes, in fact it does not exist. It is, however,
> fed by such things as Value. As I am deciphering Ham's attempts
> at explaining his ontology, I find certain meaning.  However, while
> I can put consciousness into a semantic box, I still cannot fathom
> why it is mine. It is that personal presence that requires some
> metaphysical feedback.
>
> In my readings on Dzogchen, I have been instructed not to use logic...
> I have found the term "open non-appropriative awareness" to be
> somewhat useful.  Does this term fit in with your ontology Ham?

I have no idea what "non-appropriative awareness" is supposed to mean. 
Dzogchen is a meditative state sought by the Tibetan Buddhists that can 
roughly be compared to Nirvana.  According to Wikipedia, the practice is 
"not endorsed by all Tibetan Buddhists" and at least one master, Tsongkhapa, 
"...states that without consciousness, there is no understanding."

I think Tsongkhapa is right.  For the Western mind, at least, a concept must 
be formulated in relational terms or premises and capable of logical 
analysis if it is to be understood.

Your quandary seems to be the proprietary nature of consciousness -- "why it 
is mine".
This is why I feel it is meaningful to go back to the generic term 
"Sensibility" when discussing consciousness.  Sensibility is pure awareness 
undifferentiated by knowledge, intellect, or identity.  The individual self 
is a "negation" of this sensibility -- an external observr, if you will.

Human consciousness simply doesn't have the capacity for unconditional 
awareness.  The human being is a separate organic entity with a psyche or 
mind of its own.  We exist as finite integers of what Essence is absolutely, 
value being our only connection with the undifferentiated Source. 
Everything we see or feel is a self-constructed representation of this 
value.  We can temporarily "lose ourselves" in the rapture of an exquisite 
piece of music or work of art (thus identifying ourselves with the source of 
value), but we can't "BE that value" any more than we can BE Essence.

As the appreciative "agents of value" we must be detached from the Source so 
that we are free to assess its value autonomously.  That, in my opinion, is 
man's role in existence.   It's not easy to articulate this ontology in 
logical terms.  But it has stuck with me for half a century and, frankly, I 
don't see how reality can be conceived in any other way.

I hope this helps, Will

Essentially yours,
Ham