[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[118]

Hi Carl,
Thank you for your post, this could be interesting; I may learn
something.  While in my line of business I must always supply credible
references for what I present scientifically, I have not used that
method in this forum.  However, I am happy to look through the books
on my shelf and do so if necessary.

Let me first explain why I provided the snippet from a current line of
research.  Our awareness can be considered simply as a reification of
all input coming from the outside.  This could be formalized as DQ
becoming filtered as it reaches our active consciousness (or attentive
consciousness, if you will).  I do not think this adequately explains
consciousness.  Let me use an analogy of a light bulb to explain.  We
can consider a light bulb to be translating the electricity coming in,
into light.  This would make the light bulb an actuator of such
translation.  The bulb itself is static in that it is composed of
materials which are fixed.  If we consider our awareness as the light
coming from such bulb, and the brain as a static translator, we arrive
at a somewhat deterministic view.  This would fall under current
evolutionary theory based on the predominance of the memory of the
gene.

In the paper who's paragraph I provided, the "counter current" of
memory is used to explain the co-creation of awareness, or "light".
In this way, our memory as it stands at the moment of awareness
modulates the incoming input so as to provide a real time awareness.
If we explore the mechanics of how the memory accomplishes this, we
can also arrive at a somewhat deterministic conclusion.

However, if we envision the process of awareness as being more than a
simple ever adapting machine, then we can jump into the arena of
free-will.  If indeed awareness is co-created by two separate Wills,
then such colaboration provides something that is distinct from the
predictable.  In Lila, Pirsig proposes that everything has free will.
In accordance with that, everything is expressed as morality.  Any
such expression requires choice, which is a concept found in the
free-will side of the debate.  I am in agreement that the concept of
morality can be extended in this way.

Therefore, the understanding that I was promoting was one in which DQ
not only comes from the pre-conceptual side lying on the external
input side of our existence, but that it also comes from a personal DQ
which we create.  In this way, the intellectual level, and it's
product of image formation, including concepts, is a dynamic process
instead of some kind of filtration process.  Of course the
intellectual level is much more that human intellect and its abstract
manipulation of concepts; this is just one of its expressions.

So, on to your comments...

On 1/31/12, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
> "The philosopher of religion, Huston Smith, has stated (2) that there are
> four categories in which science is limited, “four things science cannot
> get its hands on”: 1) intrinsic and normative values; 2) purposes; 3)
> ultimate and existential meanings; and 4) quality. These limitations come
> about, Smith claims, as a result of science’s helplessness in the face of
> the qualitatively unmeasurable."
>
> 2. Smith H. Beyond the Post-Modern Mind. Wheaten. IL: The Theosophical
> Publishing House, 1982:66-67.
>
> Both quotations taken from:
>
> The Quantum Physics of Consciousness: Towards a New Psychology, Fred Alan
> Wolf, Ph.D., Integrative Psychiatry, An International Journal for the
> Synthesis of Medicine and Psychiatry, Volume 3, Number 4, December 1985
>
> And commentary on the article by:
>
> Larry Dossey M.D., Dallas Diagnostic Association, Dallas, TX.
>
> Richard M. Restak, M.D., Clinical Associate Professor of Neurology,
> Georgetown University. Washington, DC.

Thanks for the quote Carl.  I enjoy H. Smith and his attempt to
intellectualize religious visions.  I recently read a book which
includes his dabbling in the LSD area with all those Harvard
professors.  I fully agree that science is not the end all of human
endeavor.  In fact, I treat science as a metaphysics where a reality
of "what is" is being proposed under certain guidelines.  Seeing it as
a metaphysics, we can look into its utility.

Science uses the concepts of measurements to present its arguments.
These measurements are man-made, since a "meter" does not exist
outside of our imaginations.  Science then uses such units of
measurement to tie things together into a credible presentation of a
reality.  Of course this system of measurement is incomplete, and
cannot be applied to those things which cannot be included in the
space-time format.  So, if the idea of the quote about Smith is to
diminish the importance of science in such areas, I can only agree
whole heartedly.  Living in the world of science, I am fully aware of
its limits.  If such a thing is seen as helpless, this would only come
from the idea that science is "all powerful" which I do not entertain.
 Current "Scientism" is a faith based on material sufficiency and
promise.  That is, "if we do not know it now with Science, be patient
and we will".  These are political promises if anything, and make us
impotent in the face of science, and its religious Scientism.  Just
look at what the priests of science are telling us to do with our
daily lives, as enforced by the government.

Staying within the grounds of what science can actually accomplish in
terms of the presentation of values and such, we can consider what
science has brought us so far, not all of this is pretty.  The rise of
psychology as a pillar of Scientism has given science much power over
our daily perpective of ourselves.  This is an area where such
Scientism can be dangerous and controlling of our very being similar
to Christianity or other dogmatic religions.  However, if we view
science as a presentation of possibilites, then we can view it simply
as a tool and not some dogmatic outcry.  In terms of brain science,
there certainly has been progress in terms of mitigating illnesses.
If people seek to "feel happy", then we are obliged to try to help
them with this through chemisty, or electro-shock therapy.

Indeed, the exploration of consciousness can be aided by the use of
science, provided we do not see the results of such as the "final
word".  Current trend in brain sciences as presented through the quote
I provided from an article that came out this week would argue against
the idea of the pre-conceptual as not including our actual brain
process of reification.  William James was a product of his time, and
his ideas of the predominance of sensory input on our awareness is
somewhat dated.  Back then the brain was seen as some kind of
waterworks where we had pressures and release valves and dams.  It is
far more etherial than that.

So, while I do not have a problem with some in the forum sticking with
the somewhat dated ideas that James had about psychology; it may be
important to see his proclamations in this area as historical building
blocks, but they should not define how we view the world.  We should
try to not keep ideas of the past with impregnable castle gates.
There has been much done since James, and his ideas can be
re-interpreted in this new light, rather than be doggedly clung to.
This is why I insist that brain scientists are simply humans which the
same introspective questions that we all have, and not some robots
marching to the drum beat of Scientism.  A priest in the Catholic
Church understand his predicatment better than those who follow his
lead.  The same can be said for scientists.
>
> Carl:
> The ball's in your court.
>
> Serving with intent,
> Carl

Love-love, play in action.  Just trying to keep it in the court
instead of sending out to the grandstands as I sometimes do in my
Zeal.

Beware of the "foot-fault",
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
>