Re: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 15 2005 - 04:57:08 GMT

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD severe tensions"

    Dan,

    I tried to make a point which was maybe missed ...

    There are many levels of "indirection" between the phenomenon and the
    consciousness - it's not just a matter of direct or indirect.

    The flesh on your finger tip burns on the surface of the hot stove,
    whether your hand is connected to your body / brain or not, let alone
    whether your are rational and conscious.

    Between the primary sensory organ, and conscious / aware / rational
    levels of decision to act there are many levels of delegated sensation
    and action. In the hot stove case, there will be reflex-like actions
    BEFORE the "F**k that was hot !" sensation or the "damn, some idiot
    left the stove on" rationlisation. In the
    driving-home-whilst-avoiding-other-traffic-mode, the brain will find
    an autopilot, below the aware / rational level of consciousness to do
    95% of the processing and acting - not quite a hard-wired spinal /
    brain-stem reflex, but a learned level of delegation somwhere in the
    grey matter.

    If we introduce mediation between the phenomena and the human, like
    the TV, and the possibility of production and editing in between, then
    we are simply extending the levels of indirection.

    At the other end of the scale, even when the "signals" reach (some
    part of) the brain - we could debate the location of the sensations,
    and the existnce of qualia, etc, etc.

    The reason for dragging that out is simply to warn us to to get too
    precious about exactly which point Pirsig was drawing his line between
    direct and indirect. All we know is that conditioned, self-reflective,
    rational analysis was above the line, the primary sensory signal
    generator was below. There are a million onion-skins in between, and
    Pirsig did not consider or analyse any of these.

    Ian

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:07:01 -0600, Dan Glover <daneglover@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Hello everyone
    >
    > >From: "max demian" <oikoumenist@hotmail.com>
    > >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > >Subject: RE: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?
    > >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:37:03 -0700
    > >
    > >Hello Matt, Dan, all…
    > >
    > >I don't really know where this string has been in the past, but I had an
    > >idea or question after reading the last couple of posts:
    > >
    > >Is it possible to have an event that is experienced prior immediate
    > >mediation? What about an event that is not immediately mediated?
    >
    > Hi Max
    >
    > I assume that you've read Lila? If so, then the hot stove analogy comes to
    > mind: "He does not think, "This stove is hot," and then make a rational
    > decision to get off. A "dim apprehension of he knows not what" gets him off
    > Dynamically. Later he generates static patterns of thought to explain the
    > situation." (Lila, page 133-134)
    >
    > I'm in the middle of a wonderfully complex and very difficult book (which
    > Ian recommended) called Zen and the Brain by Dr. James Austin. I highly
    > recommend it too. It seems that pain is not generated at the site of the
    > injury but rather in specific parts of the brain that correspond to site of
    > the injury. This is one reason why I tend to say that experience is never
    > direct for a flow through the brain seems to generate experience, not the
    > experience itself. But I could be wrong, as my old friend Roger used to
    > say...
    >
    > >
    > >In the spirit of Dan's idea of second hand experience, I thought of another
    > >instance where direct experience is even further removed. In reality T V,
    > >not only is 'reality' an orchestrated reality, but also the producers
    > >choose what 'reality' is shown on T V before it is even experienced by the
    > >viewer.
    >
    > My family makes fun of my tendency to read and write rather than watch tv. I
    > don't mind. I understand that culturally we are a tv watching nation here in
    > the USA. I've heard of reality tv of course but I've never watched so I
    > don't think I'm qualified to comment but your thought sounds about right.
    >
    > Thank you for your comments,
    >
    > Dan
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 05:12:59 GMT