You wrote 11/9 21:41 +0000:
'Logic (Aristotelian logic) *is* pushed to the absurd if one tries to answer
"What is consciousness". One can only describe something if that something
has structure (is sq), but consciousness is that which creates
structure, it is that which collapses quantum non-locality into space, time
and thingness ... one can say the same about Quality, with the added bonus
of indicating why a particular space/time/thing appearance occurs, that is,
those that have value.'
So talking about 'Quality' gives the same possibility of understanding as
talking about 'consciousness' while adding explanatory value.
'We can say that it is experiencing in toto, not "an" experience. But this
just shifts the whole business to another word.'
Agreed, but a better word.
Analyzing our 'consciousness/experience' requires exploring levels of
consciousness, like Wilber does, if we stick to 'consciousness'. If we
choose 'experience' (= value/Quality) we can distinguish static/Dynamic and
the different levels of static quality.
Choosing experience therefore offers more possibilities to differentiate
and -in a way- 'understand' 'consciousness/experience', especially if we
then distinguish between consciousness and experience and consider the
'levels of consciousness' as subdivisions of intellectual experience.
'We can describe behavior of beings we consider conscious, but that is not
Agreed, so we will never be sure whether other beings than ourselves are
conscious unless we share their experience (which I don't consider
'one needs the logic of contradictory identity ... to bring out its
essential mystery, which shows us that our S/O picture of things is at
bottom a construct ...
Why do we see trees when we ... can only "see" photons? What is continuous
that sees, that recognizes a before and after of an event, if it all reduces
to atoms moving in a void? ... the MOQ properly understood
resolves this platypus as well, but I haven't seen the resolution. Placing
consciousness at the center is a step at resolving it, but I don't think
there is any true resolution short of transcendence.'
Agreed: both for consciousness and for Quality. Let's see if the MoQ can
help us transcend SOT.
My proposal to choose 'experience' (= value/Quality) and its MoQ analysis
over 'consciousness' may have the additional explanatory value of enabling
us to better identify and 'locate' the mystery and the transcendence. It is
not the whole of our 'consciousness/experience' that is mysterious and that
is in need of transcendence of SOT. SOT is very useful for our social and
biological wellbeing and the intellectual search for 'truth' (and finding
some) is often worth the while also. (Only concentrating too much on one
type of static quality it makes it 'stale'.)
The mystery and the transcendence CAN be identified as Dynamic Quality
experience before we start distinguishing different levels in its
complement, static quality. E.g. as the experience of sitting on a hot stove
even before we jump, i.e. before we somehow recognize it as a threat to our
biological patterns of values. Something like the sound of one hand before
it starts clapping ... This is not a very worthwhile venture, though. The
problem is in the 'before': we're then trying to chronologically subdivide
experience that is still timeless.
Dynamic Quality experience can also be approached (pointed/jumped at) by
concentrating (!) on the upper fringe of the intellectual level for us, the
place where new intellectual patterns of values are emerging from the
'cutting edge', where some 'make it' and latch and where most disintegrate
again. (The type of discussion on a list like this may be such a fringe of
the intellectual level.) If we then 'let go' of the intellectual value of
new intellectual patterns of values, me get a glimpse of static quality
beyond intellectual quality, of DQ starting to latch on a higher level,
which is not stable yet. We can't describe that experience in language, for
language is the latch of the intellectual level. Describing Quality (sq or
DQ) beyond intellect is like a primitive human trying to pass on to his
fellows the experience of the first religious truths grasped through rituals
by stressing the importance of holding strictly to those rituals.
On of my hunches is, that the next type of latch for DQ beyond intellect has
something to do with 'shared experience', 'telepathic consciousness' or the
experience of collective consciousness when we relate to others (thanks to
Darell, who described something like that 12/9 16:01 -0400). For me religion
(re-ligare or reconnecting) is a key. For others art may be. Both for the
'letting go' of intellectual patterns of values and for the collective
consciousness it creates.
'What does Rudolf Steiner mean with a "pure intellectual pattern" (which is
in your interpretation needed to motivate our actions to make us free)?'
'On a more esoteric level ... we have little [meaning: not enough] control
of our thinking'
But do we need more control of our thinking or do we need more 'letting go'
to tap into collective experience???
Of course we should be aware of the pre/trans-distinction. Seeking
collective experience can also be degenerate if you think of fascism and
Do we need more intellectual autonomy or more creative networking at the
intellectual level to transcend SOT???
With friendly greetings,
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST