[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[markhsmit at aol.com]

Hi Ham,



I too see much similarity with your view, you are probably farther 

along than I with mine.  However, what I am saying is that it is

possible to experience the world without conceptualizing it.

When you speak of the brain being wired to screen out

information, that is a disservice to the brain.  Speaking of

drugs, an easy way to note how the brain is easily

unwired is through the use of psychotropics.  By mimicking

and disrupting neurotransmitters, it is possible to see

how tenuous our present consciousness is.  What is

interesting that under the influence of such things (which

I do not condone as necessary), the brain is still fighting to

make sense of what is happening.  Because of this need,

new connections are made, and supposedly new revelations

are acquired.  Many think these are more real, but they are only 

different ways in which the brain interacts.



It is possible to stop paying attention to the conceptualization

aspect of existence (no drugs needed).  You may say this is

just another conceptualization, but it's not.  You don't know

until you have been there.  Everything does not fit into a little

box, there is much more.  It can be called consciousness

expanding (not conceptualism expanding).  This is outside your

logic, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Cheers,

Willblake2


-----Original Message-----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, Oct 18, 2009 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL



Hi Will -- 
 
 
> Ham, 
> The self evident truth that all experience is differentiated and > relational 
> is a flawed assumption, IMHO. It only becomes differentiated when 
> it is conceptualized. Before that, it is Essence or Quality or what we 
> exist in day to day, an undifferentiated spectrum of noise, that is, 
> everything. 
 
How can a self-evident truth be a "flawed assumption"? Either you deny the evidence or you conceptualize it in your own way, which is an intellectual fabrication. Also, "a spectrum" of noise or color is differentiated by definition. We live in a relational world of differentiated phenomena which we experientially construct as discrete objects and events. If that is not what you are experiencing, I suggest that you lay off the marijuana for a spell ;-). 
 
> My point (as with Pirsig, I believe) is that we live with Essence or 
> non-differentiated stuff at every moment. It is only a small amount 
> of such existence that translates into the intellectual (and I don't mean 
> smart), or self relational existence. 
 
The "stuff" of the universe is the value of Essence which we objectify as Being differentiated by nothingness. The fact that existence is experienced incrementally "in small amounts" does not change this ontology. 
 
> The negation of not other, in my opinion, states that there is no such > thing 
> as other. However, when we communicate experiences in a reflective way, 
> other is born. Now, it may be difficult to imagine a sense of existence 
> where other does not exist, but that is the way we were born. At the > moment 
> of birth there was only Will. No self, no other. Then that became all > self, 
> no other. Then the intellectual relational mind began to develop. 
 
Logically, that's a correct metaphysical assumption. That is, the negation of not-other actualizes an illusory other, e.g., "things" that are not "real" from the perspective of Essence. However, I disagree that experience must be "communicated" in order to be conceptualized or made aware. (That semiotic theory creeps into this forum periodically for reasons I don't understand.) I also believe the distinction between (reification of?) Desire and Will has been exaggerated; both are the emotive drive of value-sensibility, even when realized prior to self-awareness or intellect . 
 
> A good description of this can be found in the works of Donna Williams. 
> Donna is an autistic person who is able to communicate with us. She is > able, 
> however, to transcend worlds between our differentiated world and that of 
> her past undifferentiated world. The book Autism and Sensing: The Unlost 
> Instinct covers this well. 
 
I'm not acquainted with this book, but tend to be skeptical of claims made by neurologically impaired individuals. The normal functioning brain is wired to screen out information that would otherwise disorient our perception of existence. 
 
> The opinions expressed in my posts are mine alone, and may or may not 
> have any relation to reality as seen by others. 
 
Aye, Will. It is to be assumed that I respect and abide by this caveat as well. 
 
Again, your conclusions are interesting, if somewhat off the beaten track. I will admit, however, that the epistemology you've outlined is much closer to my own than to the Pirsigians'. And that, of course, is encouraging to me. 
 
Essentially yours, 
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/