From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 17:53:37 BST
Hi Platt,
P:
> Is awareness itself a static pattern in your view? I ask because IMO
> awareness, consciousness, Quality are not "dependent" on any
> individual but exist as the present which never changes and which we
> individuals are born into. The present we are conscious of is never static
> though there are static patterns in the present.
S:
I see consciousness as having evolved and as evolving. I think the
awareness applies not only to humans. A rock responds to the pull of
gravity, and so is, in a sense, aware of it. A plant can respond to forces
that a rock can't, and so is on a higher level of awareness. My dog has
more awareness than grass, and I have more awareness than my dog.
A human baby goes through a similar progression of awareness as it becomes
physically capable of responding to different types of sensory input. (I
include a sense of mind here to include awareness of ideas as sensory
input.)
I am not, however, aware of all the possible sensory input that my
environment could offer.
My dog and I both respond to Quality, but our experience is different
because of our different static patterns (contexts). So, I have trouble
absolutizing experiences though I could think of them as experiences of
Experience.
I think it would make sense, however, to closely relate awareness and "the
Quality event"--the event that happens eternally (in the present). I have
trouble doing so because of the "awareness *of*" issue (implying a subject
being aware of an object). Everything I've said about awareness is an SOM
description. I'm having trouble doing otherwise.
P:
> In everyday living I agree with you that what we experience is largely
> determined by the static "glasses" we view the world with, those
> glasses being equivalent to a "context." But there are times, rare to be
> sure, when your glasses are suddenly and unexpectedly removed and
> all of DQ "shines through." For that moment you experience
> "transcendence" and lose you separate self sense. "Reality" becomes
> more real than real.
>
S:
I can't integrate "all of DQ" into my concept of awareness, since I don't
think humans have the capacity for awareness to that degree. DQ is
unfathomable.
Losing your separate self sense may be a higher level of awareness, but I
wouldn't want to think of it as "all of DQ." It may indeed be transcendence
as my dog's awareness transcends that of a rock, but probably not the
highest possible level of consciousness. (I say this having never had a
"mystical experience.")
S:
>> Matt's philosophy disallows a primary context, a context of not having a
>> context, i.e. DQ, or the possibility of becoming free of all static
>> patterns. He's not willing to live with such a contradiction as a point
>> of view of not having a point of view. You seem to be okay with this
>> contradiction.
>
P:
> I don't see a contradiction. A point of view only occurs when the view is
> conceptualized. Prior to concepts (and words expressing those
> concepts) is a world of pure direct experience--the primary "context" if
> you will. As you correctly point out, language is derivative from
> experience. Those who see language as the end all and be all live in a
> second-hand world of "vocabularies" and group identities. They never
> experience the reality which "passeth all understanding" because if they
> admitted to such a reality, their argot world would crumble.
S:
As Matt said, I formulated your respective positions in language that
neither of you would use. The contradictions only exist (if at all) when
viewing one philosophy from the perspective of the other.
I'll have to give more thought to your idea of a "primary context" of
Experience. I'm hitting a wall.
P:
>Those who see language as the end all and be all live in a
> second-hand world of "vocabularies" and group identities. They never
> experience the reality which "passeth all understanding" because if they
> admitted to such a reality, their argot world would crumble.
S:
But they actually do experience that reality, right? That's the part I
don't understand. I think they have been successful in creating a
self-consistent system, but I can't see where it takes them or how they
could find it to be consistent with experience.
On the other hand, I can't see how to defeat it. How can we really know
that something is better than something else without making metaphysical
assumptions? If we decide that some assumptions must be made, how can we
choose between possible sets of assumptions?
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 17:52:06 BST