Hi Jeremy,
You asked me to clarify my views on the following, but my e-mail has been
slow reaching me - sorry for the delay, as this one did not get to me at all
and i had to pick it out of the archive.
Re: MD Consciousness Explained
From: Paul Chaves (westward@sympatico.ca)
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 04:33:12 BST
Unfortunately, I must disagree with you on the basis that if consciousness
were solely DQ it would collapse. You've focused much on one aspect of
consciousness and praise be to you for that but in my view consciousness
must also be attributed with the faculty of memory. Also, if you could
please explain why you find Bo's concepts damaging; I would be much
interested in hearing your overall refutation of his concept.
Jeremy Kirouac
> Hello All!
>
> "No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it."
> Albert Einstein.
>
> "The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you
> are out there"
> Roshi, Yasutani
>
> "Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive
> phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what
> it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing
> worth reading has been written on it."
> Stuart Sutherland
>
>
>
>
> Consciousness is a Divergence of four life forms mediating DQ.
>
> I was a little excited when i wrote this and used the term, 'Diverge'
rather
> than, 'converge.'
> Sorry about that folks.
> When i'm in the grip of DQ i can be more than a little impetuous.
>
> Consciousness is a Convergence of four life forms mediating DQ.
>
> But i should like to change this to:
>
> Consciousness is DQ mediated by a Convergence of four life forms.
>
> Yes.
> I think that sounds better and conveys more of what i wished to say upon
the
> matter.
>
> Consciousness is DQ mediated by a Convergence of four life forms.
>
> Okie Dokie.
> May i sum up what my thinking has thrown up at this point?
> It may give some of you a damn good laugh at least! ;)
>
> In no relevant order:
> 1. Panpsychism.
> 2. Four life forms, Inorganic, Organic, Social and Intellect which inhere
in
> DQ.
> 3. The for levels/life forms/moralities have nothing to do with each
other.
> 4. DQ is the goal to which all patterns migrate, which suggests Teleology.
> 5. Consciousness is DQ mediated by a Convergence of four life forms.
> 5a. Therefore 'I' is an illusion.
> 6. Freedom is possible when DQ is unmediated. This is the best definition
of,
> 'I.' In a sense, i am saying that DQ IS consciousness, which is why it is
so
> hard to define.
> 7. Substance and causation belong to SOM.
>
>
>
> There is little, if anything here which Pirsig does not say or imply.
> I make no claims for originality.
> If one concentrates upon one level in the MOQ then consciousness
evaporates;
> this process is mere SOM.
>
>
> Bo's much vaunted, Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason is a
damaging
> SOM brick wall in my view, and i seem to be alone in taking this view?
> John B's voice in that he is multiplying DQ is even more damaging.
>
>
> The next contribution from me will be an essay if there is no response to
> these postings.
> The essay will be centred on, of all things, a baseball bat!
>
> All the best to everyone,
>
> Squonk. :-)
First, Bo's list. I am not in the business of refutations as that involves
dialect if honest and sophistry if sneaky. ;)
Bo shadows Pirsig's MOQ static levels with expressions of the levels
themselves.
But Bo's expression beg to be defined, and that is where the trouble begins.
The definitions lead to dialectic, and dialectic moves towards Universals,
(which may end up with DQ so what is the point)? or towards Axioms from which
one may 'build from the bottom up' all there is to be known.
This dialectic is great for science and i suspect that is what Bo has become:
a scientist stretching himself across all disciplines from fundamental
physics via psychology through sociology to, errr, psychology again?
There is little emphasis upon value or ethics in Bo's list; it is
Aristotelian and fractures rather than unifies quality.
My substituted list: Resonance - Sympathy - Evocation - Coherence does not
provide definitions and implicates holism. The shying away from definitions
is quite deliberate as quality must remain concept free; only the patterns
may suggest a metaphysical structure.
Second, DQ as Consciousness.
Well, you mention memory Jez?
The thing is, memory is static; it's after DQ and when retrieved its not what
it was but a new pattern of its own.
In a strong sense, it seems to me that when all patterns belonging to what we
may classify as a Human are responding to DQ, then they are doing so at the
cutting edge of experience.
As such, consciousness is unpatterned and strangely dynamic would you not say?
Memory inhabiting 'consciousness' is a patterned thing; a thing misleading
and false.
So, i agree with you when you say the whole thing collapses without attention
to patterns.
This may imply that conscious entities share a divine aspect that requires
encouragement in order to flourish?
The divine in us may be that which is totally free; the patterned is boxed in
and, well, human, all too human?
I really value your thoughts matey!
All the best,
Squonk. :-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST