[MD] atheistic and content

[MarshaV]

On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> But there is an awareness, that is separate from the five sense and patterns, that does not cling to such imaginings.  This awareness/experience sits in the present.  Witnessing.  It seems to be as proprietary as my eyes.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure what I can respond to here, except to maybe say I'd restate this to read "This awareness/experience IS the present".

Seems so.  

> When you say "witnessing", it seems to me to play right into the SOM way of thinking. I'd say that this apart-from-the-world witnessing thing is the "optical delusion" Einstein was referring to. It is to give into the proprietary biological boundedness by carrying this "uniqueness" all the way the through the entirety of the "self".

Well, I think the sweet looking little physicist very sexy, but I'm not sure what he can tell be about these experiences.  I consider the 'self' more the imaginary talk which disturbs my awareness, the 'I' this, 'I' that, 'I' wish nonsense, the ego ramblings.  I don' consider this witnessing separate from the world either, that's not the case I'm trying to make.


> The "you" that "witnesses" is the result of a merger between your unique sensory trajectory and your appropriation of the shared narratives of the collective.

From this statement, I think I have not described the experience very successfully.


> By forgrounding the "proprietary", you turn the "self" into what Pirsig called "this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world", which he calls "completely ridiculous".

No, I absolutely do not.  That is how you may be interpreting my words, but your words do not work for me, at all.

 
> 
> [Arlo previously]
> Prior to the appropriate of a shared, cultural consciousness, the human organism has a sense of the world exclusive to its sensory experiences.
> 
> [Marsha]
> So the books say.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Well I don't privilege "the books", but I don't ignore them either.

I am trying to explain experience, not applying what I've read in a book.  The explanation is more an open question at this point, and I was curious what Ham would say because of his insisting on, some sense of, proprietary YOU.  The pronouns are killing this conversation.    
    

> 
> [Marsha]
> No offense Arlo, but this is all analogy, patterns, storytelling.  I'm trying to discover what is going on from the experience point-of-view., and why I find this witnessing-awareness so interesting.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Fair enough, although I don't know how we can talk about things apart from "analogy, patterns, storytelling". Of course what I say is all these things. It HAS to be. It can't be anything else. But the same goes for what you say. Viva la narrative!

I love stories, and I appreciate it's all is story.   I guess there's no way of getting there via the language, but I'll continue to investigate.  Do you do that?   -  I cannot just have any Tom, Dick or Harry telling me how it is.  I have the time and I will follow the threads to the ends of the worlds, or as long as I can.


Marsha


p.s.   Lots of motorcycles out day.