Scott and the Lot
At another stop with a telephone available. I may have a go at the consciousness issue, and
what is a better spring-board than this letter?
On 24 Jun 2002 at 19:02, Scott R wrote:
> If I really were a Zen master, I suppose I'd finish it with "just sit",
> or "get back to your koan, fool".
> But I'm not. Unfortunately, I don't know how to finish it. I have had
> some notion that physics might be the One, True psychology, that is,
> that quantum mechanics might be an initial stab at a description (not an
> explanation) of how the mind measures the non-spatio-temporal, and in
> doing so, creates a spatio-temporal picture of it, which we call
> physical reality.
The "consciousness" term isn't used in the above passage, but "mind" is and what we really
talk about is mind or awareness: Thinking; having access to reality; knowing what is
objectively true, different from the mindless, subjective prison that the rest of existence is
trapped in. Responsible ...MORAL!!. Most people (of this group) equals this value with the
Intellectual level of the MOQ ..but that's only partly it: Q-Intellect is the value of the
knowledge/ignorance DIVIDE. This sounds like splitting hairs, but the difference is huge.
Another point is that intellect in its role as the summit level don't recognize this limitation
(being a mere level) It's reality itself! Look, all levels have in turn acted the role (of reality
itself) in their time as top notch. When Society was the spear-head of evolution its value
dominated existence and it looked upon the budding intellectual value as a nuisance, and in
its time social value was a threat to Biology. And this goes on, people so easily play into the
hand of intellect by applying its "tools" (values) on the MOQ (which must be something
beyond intellect to "see" intellect).
NOTA BENE.
Here I part company with most of the discussers who believe that S/O is an intellectual
pattern that can be replaced by another (better) one, but I can't for the life of me understand
what is intellect's (value) except for the S/O, and how it can mend itself in such a
fundamental way. It is as if LIFE suddenly would become DEATH. I have asked for a
definition of it, but none such has been presented without vague suggestions about "self-
reflection" and "thinking" and such which are the very halfs of the "consciousness" variants
mentioned above ...which is playing straight into the hands of Intellect.
end of NB
So my conclusion is that "consciousness/awareness/" along with their counterparts are
"poison" used in a MOQ context because they are off-shoots of Intellect's mind/matter root.
As said a thousand times: All creatures sleep and waking up must be to a reality different
from oblivion. When a fish wakes up it's to a biological reality, and when we wake up it is to
the whole range of realities values, but even Intellect is a mere Q-level and no "God's Eye"
stance.
(Scott went on)
> There are a number of objections to this, one being
> that it is purely speculative (and, as Wilber notes, what if QM gets
> overthrown by the next revolution in physics?). Also, it only describes
> (if it does) our awareness of the inorganic.
Quantum Mech. is Intellect's outmost fringe (where it borders on to DQ) which is the reason
for its "irrational" conclusions, but I don't think QM will be overthrown by any new revolution
in physics - rather it will be the physics of the next development beyond Intellect.
> Another is that it doesn't
> provide a clue to why we are in complete ignorance of the
> non-spatio-temporal. And so on. Maybe it's just a good metaphor.
Don't become too subtle dear Scott :-)
> By the way, because I was cut off, I wasn't able to respond to a
> question from you that I saw in the archives about where I got the
> "differential mystic" notion from. It is from Robert Magliola's "Derrida
> on the Mend". Nagarjuna is his main example of one, about whom there are
> several books. One good take is in the long introduction of "The
> Emptiness of Emptiness" by I forget who. A quick sense of the difference
> between a differential mystic from a centric one is that the latter
> emphasizes something like meditating on God's Love (John of the Cross is
> a typical example), while the former is more concerned with removing
> one's limiting beliefs, for example in one's own self-existence, or in
> the idea of an independent, objective reality. Neither -- as paths --
> should be considered superior to the other, unless they fall into their
> respective traps: the differential into nihilism, the centric into idolatry.
Profound observations.
IMO as always.
Bo
PS
Glad to see DMB back with his well-edited messages and clear opinions. I was particularly
pleased to read his evaluation (of Scott's presentation) of Barfield's work. And to-day's Wilber
-Pirsig comparison. Interesting. As well as 3WD's input. I will answer and possibly post it at
my next stop ....watering my horses :-).
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 - 16:02:24 BST