[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[MarshaV]

Will2,

As an aside, nothing gave me more incitement than to discover:
opposite-from-non-chair and non-chair.  There it is, in all its conceptual
glory, opposite-from-non-chair, every last bit, and all in love.     


Marsha  




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:57 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?)


On Aug 23, 2009, at 12:56:39 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
Again, duality is "simply intellectualizing" a concept based on experience. 
The concept has no particular esthetic value; it's simply a relational 
precept or principle of existence.
Tell me, do you "experience the world in a non-dual manner" by erasing this 
concept from your mind or by imagining yourself as the world you see?

Hi Ham,

I experience the world in a non-dual manner, by neither of the above,
because that would be
subjecting it to the duality of logical thought.  It is not a logical
experience per se.  Much in the
same way that the feeling of happiness has no logic to it.  It is beyond the
intellect, which merely
tries to enclose it, and sometime I feel, diminish it.  In terms of
"meaning", this can
be achieved non-intellectually in a more true manner than otherwise.  (OK,
what is true,
what is meaning, I know the routine).  I would posit that what you call
intellectual 
understanding is just an extension of what you term experiences.  You like
your
ontology because it feels right, not because it is logical.  What
differentiates it from another
ontology which may have much more logic behind it?  It is that it feels
right to you.
If you change your mind, it is not because of additional logic, it is
because it feels better.

What drew me to MOQ, that is, that it was beyond intellectualizing, could
not be
encapsulated.  While this is difficult to understand by someone who requires
logic and and
so called conceptualizing, there are logical paths that can be followed to
achieve
a certain amount of Eureka.  That is, if one is willing to accept that such
a thing exists
to begin with.

Oh, the square root of negative 2 cannot exist mathematically, yet it does.
 The opposite
of a chair does not exist.  In fact all physical objects have no opposites,
only concepts do.
Many things do not exist, the sound of beauty for example.  

"Without consciousness", hmm there is not much if it is the ground of
everything, but
it certainly has nothing to do with thinking, that is just electrical
firing.

Yes it is sad that modern man has no time to think of the inner spirit,
philosophy is
going in circles (easy for me to say, knowing very little of the subject).

I do like your estrangement from the source and Value sensibility as a form
of 
understanding the human condition.  What does it do for you besides
providing
you with a nice logical explanation?  Is there more to it than just the
conceptualization?
I ask this in all seriousness.  Buddha brought to people a large source of 
compassion which is rooted in, and directly results in, a glowing feeling
for all
sentient beings.  I see no reason why one cannot extend this beyond just
the 
sentient, since I feel, in the final analysis, that our so called mind is no
different
than the wind.  But now I am starting to ramble.



Willblake2
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/