[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[markhsmit]

Ham,

Well if you must describe my ontology in your logical terms, I have no problem with
that.  Ah, yes the trappings of words which one quickly pounces on.  If I thought you
would understand poetry I would describe it that way so that you wouldn't be caught up
in logic.  Your projection of me as nothing more than you is the fundamental problem
with your world view.  I must think as you, how could I not?  It's the only way to think.
Your need to include me in your world view, suggests that you are perhaps a little
concerned with the problems in your ontology.  The logical absurdities that you mention
are only such because you have defined the rules of logic.  Anything outside
of such rules must be absurd, by definition.  Camus can wax eloquent on the 
absurd.  Yes, if 2+2 = 4, and so on, then the square root of negative 2 is absurd by definition. 
I don't know why you can't understand my point there.  It is not a mathematical anomaly, it 
lies outside the logic of math, yet relates directly back to it.  If a logical absurdity has 
no value, the meaning of all paradoxes is lost on you.  Don't be afraid to venture
out a little, you may be surprise.

Ignorance creates the busyness in your head.  As soon as you construct something
to dispel the ignorance you must give it an attribute and compare it to something else, 
as though that gives it more meaning. You create a relativistic web
of self supporting concepts which is only hanging from itself, all based on assumptions;
this busyness feeds on itself.  Something is not made more real by imagining
its opposite.   It is this ignorance that I would suggest you investigate. 
 1+1 will only get you so far, and it is a house of cards if you take it far
enough down the rabbit hole, if I may mix things up.

Valuism and an absolute source that transcends existence and 
eliminates the paradox of infinite regression.  Yes of course that 
makes perfect logical sense.  A source that goes beyond existence 
which would of course logically make part non-existent, unless you
feel that there is something beyond those two.  So explain to 
me this transcendence.  What capability do you have of experiencing
this source? Or is it by definition that which Value is?  How does 
this ontology go beyond the cyclical logic that created it.  Without 
feeding on your own philosophy, please explain what this 
would relate to in the real world, use a metaphor if you wish.

I believe you may have something in your ontology, but it is 
taking some digging.  Thanks for your patience.

Willblake2


On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:45:22 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?)
Date:   August 26, 2009 1:45:22 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

On Aug 23, 2009, at 12:56:39 AM, "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com" wrote:


> 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.

I plead no contest to your suggestion that I like my ontology because it 
"feels good", but then didn't Pirsig say that we know Quality for the same 
reason? In any case, that's no reason to reject the duality of existence -- 
especially if we postulate an absolute source that transcends existence and 
eliminates the paradox of infinite regression.

> 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 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.

So now you concede that logic is required to (intellectually) conceptualize 
what is not possible to know empirically. And that is exactly how I arrived 
at my philosophy of Essence. But, as you say, my hypothesis will be of no 
value to those unwilling to accept that there is such an ultimate reality.

You can forget about "the opposite of a chair" and mathematical anomalies, 
as they are only logical absurdities, whereas ontology is a philosophical 
quest.

> 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 would certainly like to think so. If you thought you had an answer to the 
riddle of the universe, wouldn't it be more than just a concept?

> 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.

I don't know about the "glowing feelings", but human compassion is a moral 
value that plays an important role in society. Need I remind you that 
Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy?

Thanks for the response, Will. I hope I've put things in sharper focus for 
you.

--Ham

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/