[MD] Meet Your Mind

[MarshaV]

Ooops...    

Here is the correct url for The Consciousness Chronicles 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBo3h3-WrLM    





On Nov 8, 2012, at 4:16 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> Way too many ambiguous terms for this discussion to go anywhere, but thanks for responding.  
> 
> I once watched over eight hours of presentation from a conference on consciousness, 'The Consciousness Chronicles 2-dvd set.' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBo3h3-WrL )   It was all very interesting, but no consensus was to be found.  I've read plenty from Alan Wallace and others suggesting a Buddhist perspective.  
> 
> Interesting to think about, but I do not know.   Maybe _interdependency_ is the most I can say.
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:08 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> 
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 5:20 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark, 
>>> 
>>> The radio show, 'To the Best of our Knowledge', ran a program called 'Meet Your Mind' on the topic of consciousness which included the six segments listed below.  The six items were not book titles.  I thought it was an interesting show, but if it didn't interest you that's okay too.  
>> 
>> I was only making a point about SQ.  modeling the mind using the mind is like the sun shining on itself.  The items were interesting in their own way.  I was simply using the principles of MoQ.
>>> 
>>> You state that you are more interested in what makes a consciousness yours.  Well, what makes a consciousness yours?   _To possess?_  What makes a heart yours?  What makes a motorcycle yours?  What makes knowledge yours?  What makes righteousness yours?  What makes an experience yours?  Possibly patterns of thought?  It's _yours_ because you think it???  It's mine.  It's mine.  It's mine.  It's mine.  It's mine.  It's mine.  Or it's not mine.   It's not mine.   It's not mine.   It's not mine.   It's not mine.   It's not mine.   
>> 
>> I don't think you understood my interest.  It has nothing to do with possession.  It had to do with the singularity of being.  When I say "mine", I am referring to DQ, not some static hypothetical.  It is important not to confuse DQ with SQ, otherwise one exists only in object/object metaphysics.
>>> 
>>> The Buddhists have perception divided into six senses:  eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body(touch) and mind (awareness of mental phenomenon.)   I didn't think anyone could yet explain seeing, let alone consciousness.  But isn't it better to consider such things then to take them for granted?  Within the MoQ aren't the sensual experiences considered biological in what they value?
>> 
>> The senses are our physical connections with existence.  For the Buddhist they were doorways.  The biological is an intellectual construct and has nothing to do with connections or doorways.  Again you seem to be imposing object/object metaphysics onto DQ/SQ.  this will never lead anywhere.  If you call them biological, what more does that tell you about the senses?  You are imposing a concept as if real.
>>> 
>>> RMP:  "Consciousness can be described as a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality."  
>>>  (LILA's Child).
>> 
>> Well, that is certainly not the standard definition of consciousness.  Pirsig is referring to thought here, which is why he qualified with "can be described".  this implies there are other ways to describe it.  it is that point that is important.  descriptions are SQ, and not the real thing.  if we think they are the teal thing,  they no longer apply to DQ.  there is nothing wrong with definitions unless they entrap us in SQ.  but we already know that from MoQ.
>> 
>> Consciousness is more than thought.  However, if this is how you see consciousness, are you defining DQ as you listen to Wagner?  If so, what kind of definition is that?
>> 
>> I don't see enjoying Wagner as SQ; it cannot be defined.  Yet we are conscious as we do so, even if we are not thinking, but instead dancing.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> snip