[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

On Aug 20, 2009, at 9:00 PM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

> I do not believe the estrangement from this source is terminal
> and can not be achieved.  Indeed, getting totally lost in music
> (I know there is one Wagner fan who would agree) is another
> way to achieve understanding. I don't think it should be limited
> to the rational brain which is only one of our "sensing" organs.

Your description of man's estranged condition as "terminal" is misconceived, 
inasmuch as the self has no power "to be" but is a negate (nothingness) from 
the moment of birth.  This 'I am' that ponders an existential world is 
totally dependent on the value of Essence and the finite organism that its 
value-sensibility actualizes.  How can a non-entity expect to achieve 
permanence in an absolute reality that it was never part of?  Instead, we 
should relish this unique opportunity to bask in the value of our uncreated 
source, for it is the only essence we shall ever possess.

> With negation of nothingness I believe you come close to
> explaining that which Buddha also conceived and experienced.
> I find your explanations to match many of my realizations,
> just in different words or concepts. It just takes me a while
> to sift through them.
>
> I believe that Pirsig, with the use of Quality, also expressing
> such a source.  Unfortunately I do not believe he expresses
> methods of experiencing it outside of logic. The tricky thing
> about relying solely on logic is that the actual sense trying to
> be imparted is divided up in words which form a feeble net
> to catch other minds. In fact trying to explain it is like trying
> to gather up the ocean with a net.

Philosophy is mainly a logical discipline involving dialectical arguments to 
arrive at conceptual paradigms of ultimate reality.  If Pirsig is suggesting 
an ultimate source, his evolutionary tretament of Quality does not define 
it.  I tend to agree with Kant that certain 'a priori' principles can be 
accessed intuitively.  However, it would appear that you're looking for some 
kind of epiphany that would reveal absolute truth directly.  I wish you 
success in your search, although I'm skeptical that this is possible.

> I'm not sure if you are dismissive of meditation; I think of it
> more as contemplation, no different than what you are doing,
> except that it is not done through logic alone.

I have a problem with "understanding" that is not intellectual.  Like your 
friend, I am fond of Wagner's music and can be moved to tears by the strains 
of Tristan and Isolde.  But this esthetic experience isn't "understanding", 
nor is an altered state of consciousness induced by chemicals or meditation. 
I can understand a mathematical equation, a logical syllogism, a 
cause-and-effect process, or a set of ideas that relate to my experience. 
I don't know about you, but I'm unable to gain understanding by reciting a 
mystic mantra or contemplating my navel.

Cheers and good luck, Will.

Ham