From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 27 2004 - 21:46:57 GMT
Scott,
> Godel didn't show it as being contradictory, only incomplete.
Godel showed it as being contradictory in proving there's no such thing as
proof.
> Well, I would not consider this paradoxical, since I don't see that the
> "the present never changes" makes any sense. But the paradox of the one and
> the many has been around since the pre-Socratics.
The "present" (the now moment) is the same as "awareness" that you rightly
say never changes but is aware of change. Awareness is also called Quality
by Pirsig to indicate what he believes to be its essential nature and
driving force. Others have called it Universal Mind, Brahman, Tao, Buddha,
Atman, Absolute, Spirit, Suchness, Superconscious, Godhead, Truth, Beauty,
Goodness. etc., all words pointing to the same understanding although we
realize that words to describe it fall short. Just as we know Godel's
Theorem is true but can't prove it, we know awareness but can't get
"outside" of it to define it. In a sense, we are it, or rather we a born
into it, become it, and lose it at death. The "present" or awareness isn't
something that happens; it's an infinite happening.
> What Pirsig's levels does not address is *awareness* of change. The
> continuity I am speaking of is that sense of self which is aware of change.
> So for this to address this would imply that the inorganic is aware of the
> biological, the biological of the social, etc.Obviously, "some things
> change, and some things stay the same", which can be restated as some
> change happens within slower change. But where does awareness of change
> come from? That is not at all obvious.
Awareness is ineffable. But for the sake of description it consists of
both change and permanence simultaneously, the same as Pirsig's division
of Quality into Dynamic and static. He says as you do that you can't have
one without the other--both are needed.
The ability of the inorganic, biological and social levels to link with
and understand awareness is limited compared to a well-functioning human
who has the benefit of connecting to awareness from all levels. In fact, I
believe evolution, far from just being a matter of chance, to be driven
by a universal desire to reach a complete understanding of what it's like
to be fully aware, to become Universal Mind as it were. Obviously, we have
a ways to go. :-)
> I consider it untenable that the sense of self can arise out of neural
> activity. The continuity (the sense of a continuing self) must span all the
> changes in the brain and outside of it for there to be awareness of
> anything.
I think Alzheimer's victims lose all sense of a continuing self,
indicating that a healthy brain is a necessary connecting link to
understanding the presence of one's self in a present moment.
> See my reply to Steve. It looks to me like Pirsig equates pure experience
> with DQ.
"Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions.Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the
sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of
these things."(Lila, 5) Pirsig then goes on, for the purpose of
intellectualizing, to divide Quality into DQ and SQ instead of Subjects
and Objects. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but thinking (which is necessary
for our survival) requires that we break up awareness and rearrange it
into manageable patterns of meaning.
> > Where we may agree is on the nature of consciousness (mind) as stated by
> > physicist Erwin Schoedinger: "The external world and internal
> > consciousness are one and the same thing." Pirsig adds the notion that
> > consciousness (mind) is essentially a moral force. Now that's something
> > really new to modern philosophy.
>
> I would not quite agree with Schrodinger. While the external world is in
> one sense the same as our consciousness, in that (so I think) it operates
> under the same general form (contradictory identity), there is the
> difference that the external does not appear to be under our control, while
> the internal to some degree is. Because of that degree of control, we speak
> of a self, and free will, and so on.
Good point, although we cannot escape from always living in the present
moment, the big kahuna of awareness so to speak, although we can pretend
so.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 27 2004 - 22:06:39 GMT