[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Arlo, some discussion below if it is not rejected.
Mark

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> No I do not believe [the Intellectual level] is SOM, SOM comes out of the
> intellect but does not represent it.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'd say SOM is a subset of intellectual patterns, ones that derive from the
> very specific metaphysical premise that the primary division of "reality" is
> subject/objects.
>

[Mark again]
I believe we are talking about the same thing.  As subjects and objects I am
referring to the intellectualization of such as objects and objects.  The
subjective is another thing altogether.  This has been discussed quite a bit
recently.

>
> [Mark]
> SOM is used for communication, but not for awareness.
>
> [Arlo]
> No. I'd say that "subjects" and "objects" as parts of grammatical
> structures are used in many forms of communication, but "SOM" is, again, a
> very specific metaphysical premise.
>
> I think you are confusing the "subjects" and "objects" of language with
> "SOM", as if the use of a grammatical "subject" necessitates one holding
> that "subjects/objects" are the primary division of reality. This is (I
> would hope) obviously untrue. Grammatical structures also include, for
> example, tense, action (verbs), descriptors, flow-markers (punctuation),
> etc.
>

[Mark]
Yes, you are pointing to the distinction between mind and matter, something
that has always been at the center-point of religions and philosophies,
particularly the metaphysical.  There is nothing new here.  If you believe
that Pirsig presents something different, could you provide me with an
explanation?  I speak several languages, and I can say that sentence
structure differs in each.  Verbs are also delineators of a subjective sense
as well as objective agreement.

>
> [Mark]
> Intellect is also involved in awareness.  That is, what happens before
> thoughts are constructed.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm not sure, but you appear to be conflating two things here. To get to
> your second point "[awareness] is what happens before thoughts are
> constructed", I think Pirsig's comment in ZMM supports this.
>
> "All the time we are aware of millions of things around us...these changing
> shapes, these burning hills, the sound of the engine, the feel of the
> throttle, each rock and weed and fence post and piece of debris beside the
> road...aware of these things but not really conscious of them unless there
> is something unusual or unless they reflect something we are predisposed to
> see. We could not possibly be conscious of these things and remember all of
> them because our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable
> to think. From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and
> call consciousness is never the same as the awareness because the process of
> selection mutates it. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape
> of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world." (ZMM)
>
> Here Pirisig uses the term "awareness" to precede the discriminatory
> process that results in "consciousness", something he calls later the
> "endless landscape of awareness around us". I know you hate quotes, but here
> is another from ZMM supporting this. "He simply meant that at the cutting
> edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be a kind of
> nonintellectual awareness, which he called awareness of Quality." (ZMM)
>

[Mark]
Yes, I am aware of such a thing.  I am pointing past or beyond that
simplistic form of description which uses SOM.  What, if I may ask, is doing
the selection?  I think this is an important question if you want to
understand where I am coming from.  As in "from all this awareness we must
select".  In your opinion, what is the "we" pointing at?  Who's hand is
holding the sand?

It would seem you have a notion of some control happening outside of the
awareness.  Is this a soul you are referring to?  If so, what is the
connection between such a soul and the physical interpretation of the
awareness.  If, on the other hand, you subscribe to a materialistic view,
which part of the material is in control of selecting the awareness?  Many
in the past thought it was the pineal gland (the seat of the soul), this has
been dismissed.  It would seem from your choice of quote, that you do
subscribe to a "selector".   I simply ask for clarification.  I have already
been through all this many years ago.  I would like to know where you have
got with this.  What in your mind is the subjective that selects?

>
> [Arlo]

And this leads into the first part of your comment (which I think you
> incorrectly conflated into the latter). Here, intellect is not "involved in
> awareness" as much as it derives FROM awareness.
>

[Mark]
My answer to this is the same, and I can understand how this may appear as
conflation to you.  But let's talk it through.  How does this derivation
occur, and how is such a thing separate from awareness?  You are pointing to
two different things here, the awareness and something beyond that which
"discriminates" the awareness.  How are the two different, and where does
the separation occur?

Thanks for the discussion,
Mark

>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>