[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[X Acto]

> 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.

You confirm the duality of existence when you say "I experience the world." Logic doesn't make the subject "I" and the object "world" two different essents.  Your experience does.  And experience only becomes intellectual when you draw conclusions from it.  Yet, you claim to "experience the world in a non-dual manner" without the aid of logic or your intellect.  Unless your conscious experience is seriously impaired, I can only conclude that your "experience" of non-duality is a fantasy of your imagination.

Let's get real, Will.  Your experience of the world is no more non-dual than mine is. You WANT reality to be a unity, just as Pirsig WANTS reality to be Quality, so you conceptualize it that way.  And conceptualizing requires intellect.  You can intellectualize a belief in anything.  Theories and postulates abound, but empirical truth for human beings lies in experience. The truth is that the world is differentiated, and the primary contingencies are the conscious subject and its objective otherness.

Ron:
Boy, how one contradicts themselves in one paragraph "you can intellectualize a belief in anything"

what makes you so sure your belief is the "truth" while others are not? you just undercut yourself as well.

is'nt it all one experience divided into parts?