[MD] An Apple

[118]

Hi John,

Thank you for the reference, I will read it if it is in the library.

What I believe is important to realize (to those so inclined), is that
We are pure consciousness.  The divisions we place on such
consciousness as opposed to "other kinds" can be quite misleading.  We
claim a separation from What Is, in a manner which only leads to more
confusing structure building in order to support such a claim.

If indeed, we wish to relegate intellectual activity into the realm of
"impure consciousness", then we can ascribe to any consciousness
outside of such intellectual pondering as "pure consciousness".  This
"pure consciousness" would include the vast balance of our awareness
in this existence.  Even as we are "thinking", there is so much more
going on, that this "impure consciousness" is somewhat trivial.  As I
suggested in my first paragraph, this division we form between
consciousnesses is somewhat misleading since it requires consciousness
to be aware of itself.  If we go that route we get into another one of
these silly paradoxes.

Consciousness is our expression, just like a flower expresses beauty,
or the sun expresses sunlight.  The sunlight cannot turn around and
begin subdividing its own illumination.  The sunlight of our
consciousness illuminates the world, just like the sun's light
illuminates objects.  But the light of such objects does not reside in
those things in and of itself.  Such light is a function of the
sunlight itself.  Our consciousness brings things to light.  There is
a quote about this (probably many) but I cannot recall it right now.

As we create experience, we illuminate.  The paradox is, of course,
that we illuminate the creation of such experience as well. This is
self reflection, and should never enter into the cycle of "thinking
about thinking", for that is completely misguided, just like Zeno's
paradoxes.  They do not "prove" anything.  However, observing such a
paradox as if from a distance, one can become illuminated in
non-rational ways.  Once these ways have been absorbed, rationality
can follow from that “new” viewpoint.  It is often impossible to
explain how one began seeing things in a completely new way.  I think
that ZAMM does a good job with this.

This is a process of creation.  We are the big bang.  Asking what
causes this conscious creation is like asking what came before the big
bang.  We created the idea of the big bang, so why would we think that
something came before it?  Things can only come after such a creation.

Just like a finger cannot point at itself, we cannot point to
consciousness.  This is of course one way to look at it.  I will also
say that "pointing at consciousness" can be very fulfilling, but not
for the reasons people think; that is, getting answers.  The reasons
are, to be able to continue creating.

Each person shines like a million suns.  We are not black holes that
exist through the sucking in of knowledge.  The sunlight of our
knowledge brings meaning and a sense of wonder.  it lights up the
world.

BTW John, I put something together on your questions concerning the
intellect and levels and other things.  I will be posting this
shortly.

Thank you for participating.

Cheers,
Mark
On 7/20/12, T-REXX Techs, Inc. <trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Marsha,
>
> I believe your inquiry is an honest one.  The idea of "pure experience" is
> somewhat familiar to me.  I have been corresponding for years with Dr.
> Shimon Malin, a renowned quantum physicist and author of the book Nature
> Loves to Hide.  He referred me to a philosophy book by Franklin
> Merrell-Wolff called Transformations in Consciousness, the metaphysics and
> epistemology of his "Philosophy of Consciousness without an Object".  I
> think this philosophy directly addresses the idea of "pure consciousness"
> and also of "mindfulness-awareness which is free from mental narration".
> But I believe he is talking about a transcendental state of consciousness
> that is also free of "the intellect in association with perceptions".  I
> think it's a state of freedom from awareness of the self as separate.  I'm
> only half way through the book and not really prepared to discuss how it
> relates to your inquiry, but I have the sense it could be useful.
>
>              Another source of ideas about this topic would be Dr. Malin's
> little book of short essays called The Eye that Sees Itself.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> John L. McConnell
>
> Office:  407-859-2637
>
> Cell:     321-438-6301
>
> Home:  407-857-2004
>
> Email:   <mailto:trexxtechs at bellsouth.net> trexxtechs at bellsouth.net
>
>
>
> 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
>