MD lila's child

[Marc Brookhuis]

I’ve been away for a couple of months, so I missed most of the discussions on moq, but was able to read Lila’s  Child on my journey.   Has Lila’s Child been discussed on moq?   Marc   -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Thracian Bard Verzonden: dinsdag 10 april 2001 5:41 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: MD metaphorically aware   Dear Elephant, I must commend you on a truly clever response. As I write this I will try to avoid the various logic traps planted therein, but I fear that I may fall into one. Well, here goes;   Elephant writes: Bard.  About those ancient traditions.  The greeks were a diverse and inventive bunch, so practically any tradition you can think of is an ancient one.  The precise forbear of the theory you just expounded is Anaxagoras: the theory of intermixture.  This can be expressed as that a minute part of butter is honey, and that a minute part of honey is butter.  OK.  But what's the attraction?  What's the quality in such a view?  How does it help me prepare a tasty breakfast? Another thing about Anaxagoras: he said that everything is [mixed up] together, *except* for mind [nous].  I would guess that if you go and ferret his reasons for thinking that mind is different, you may be interested and surprised. Oh - and on the hamlet-and-laurence-olivier-as-distinct-awarenesses-in-the-same-skin-togethe r-is-ok-because-of-quantum-mechanics-argument: "really?".  You *really* think that Quantum Mechanics requires one to project the behaviour of quarks onto both consciousnesses and medium scale molecular structures such as human bodies? Before I respond, allow me to make a few observations. Your reference to Anaxagorus is right on! However, as one who does not believe in coincidences, I am convinced that it is no coincidence that Anaxagorus and Lao Tze were contemporaries as their philosophies, although separated by culture and thousands of miles, are nearly identical. It is apparent to me that the Tao of which Lao Tze speaks IS, in fact the "Nous" of which Anaxagorus waxes profoundly. And for that reason, the "Nous" refers not to an individual's mind, but to a collective mind. It is not certain, although many of us profess so, that we each really have any individual minds. And, in that lies a trap. If we have no individual minds, then you might argue that we have no individual awareness, and therefore, neither do the atoms of which we speak. However, I would suggest that we and atoms are both individually and collectively aware, but that atoms tend to be more consistent in their choices because they are just a bit smarter than the human organisms who discuss whether atoms are aware, in that atoms seem to want to do what is in the best interest of the collective "Nous" rather than be swayed by individual desires that have little concern for the effect on the satisfaction of the collective organism (e.g: industry prizes profit over the adverse effects of pollution).   Which leads me to the Hamlet/actor paradox: Who says there is more than one consciousness? Maybe we all share the same one. And I prefer to call THAT consciousness by its name, "NOUS."   Always a pleasure to share views! The Bard   p.s. Combining the two threads seems right!