Liked the post, but strange image, Marty. Some differences between houses
and consciousness:
1. Estate Agents.
2. Mortgages.
3. Plumbers.
4. Having a nice house *isn't* proportionately related to how hard you work,
whereas having an enlightened consciousness is.
5. There is an inmost centre in us all,
Where truth abides in fulness; and around,
Wall upon wall, the gross flesh hems it in,
This perfect, clear perception - which is truth.
A baffling and perverting carnal mesh
Binds it, and makes all error: and to KNOW
Rather consists in opening out a way
Whence the imprisoned splendour may escape,
Than in effecting entry for a light
Supposed to be without
-Browning
6. In consciousness there is no outside except for other consciousnesses.
(For the purposes of argument City folk remember: the
underground/subway/street/transport cafe is not a house).
7. Houses you can use metaphor and similie to describe.
Will that do for starters?
> Elephant: "'Consciousness has us rather than the other way around'? Almost.
> Except
> that not being an object it can't have properties."
>
> Marty: I agree that Consciousness is no object; my point was that
> consciousness is not the product of the brains of certain sentient beings,
> but that our experience of consciousness leads us to perceive static/dynamic
> quality and to give it names, such as 'Elephant'.
ELEPHANT:
It seems to me that you are still treating *consciousness* as a product
(*a* product, and a *product*) - and that's where you are going wrong. *Of
course* consciousness isn't the product of natural processes - but that
isn't because of some special insufficiency in brains as opposed to some
supposed non-natural process: it's because consciousness isn't a *product*
at all (and neither is it a process, by the way).
Neither is *a* consciousness a product or a process. (since products are
what individual conciousnesses produce).
True enough - 'elephant' is just a name for some static pattern (actually I
would think that it's a name for many distinct static patterns, the pictures
of elephant that are entertained in different minds and in the same mind
over time are not all the same in nature (not type-identical) and are
obviously numerically distinct besides). But so what?
You can't infer from this that 'horse' and 'elephant' are enjoying the very
same consciousness (this is what you appear to infer).
Persons, Conciousnesses - these are different concets. Compare 'person' and
'soul'. My personality can have a bearing on the fate of my eternal soul,
but this fate needn't be shared with the fate of the personality. It might
be that the personality dies for the soul to live. Likewise with
individuated consciousness: the fact that personal identity ('elephant') is
so fragile doesn't make the distinction between this consciousness and that
one any the less distinct. Consciouness and personality are not the same.
Once you recognise that the static patterns (the identification of distinct
persons) is overlaid on a continuum, one thing which this removes
*immediately* is the possibility of saying something crass (which of course
you do not in fact say) like 'we are all one'. Such a statement severally
supposes and asserts precisely the kind of static pattern it claims to be
transcending: 'one', 'all', 'we'.
Transparently, from the moment we enter language to report on the affairs of
'we' and of 'I', *we are not one*. My consciousness, a consciousness of DQ
attached to a particular SQ history, is a different consciousness from
yours.
I don't understand 'I experience consciousness'. (ever tried seeing
yourself seeing?) Surely only 'I experience (...)' or 'I am conscious'
makes sense?
Marty:
> You are right about not having the language to adequately express this
> relationship [twixt consciousness and subjects], but to quote Bruce
Springsteen "But Mama, that's where the fun
> is!"
"Fun is the one thing that money can't buy."
She's Leaving Home
buy buy
Elephant
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 3:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>
>
> I think the recognition that there are *other* conciousnesses is
> important.
>
> This is partly the realisation that the conciousness we speak for as 'I'
> *isn't* the basic stuff of the universe - but it is also something else.
> The reality of your consciousness just strikes me as obvious (if I'm not
> wraped up in some fantastic world of my own fabrication, or, which is the
> same thing, pre-linguistically).
>
> 'Consciousness has us rather than the other way around'? Almost. Except
> that not being an object it can't have properties.
>
> There is no right way of expressing this in English. This relationship
> between concsiouness and subjects is before english. Before language. Or:
> it *is* language.
>
> Elephant to stay
>
>
>> From: Marty Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:10:56 -0700
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>
>> Hi Gary - Excuse me for jumping in, but this line coincides with the
> direction
>> I am leaning in right now. I'm currently of the mind that the basic
> 'stuff'
>> of the universe is consciousness, and that Quality could be the name for
> that
>> which propels it into value patterns, which may be dynamic or static. I
> don't
>> see c/a (to use your term) as an attribute that something can have, but
> rather
>> as THE primary (and only?) existent that has everything else. Our
> language
>> confuses the issue; when we say that "I am a conscious entity", it sounds
> like
>> we are saying we are one thing and our consciousness is another, i.e., we
> HAVE
>> consciousness. I think it may be the other way around - consciousness HAS
> us,
>> in a way. There is consciousness, pure and undefined; once we start
>> identifying, naming and segmenting, we perceive static objects (and
> subjects,
>> such as the self), that we perceive as the physical stuff of the universe.
>> This is about as far as I have thought this through and there are a number
> of
>> questions I have, but this feels right to me so far. Any comments?
>>
>> marty j
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gary Charpentier Sent:
>> Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:39 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>
>>
>> Elephant,
>>
>> Thank you so much for responding! I have to wonder if Subject couldn't be
> more
>> accurately described as a pattern of consciousness or awareness (hereafter
>> referenced:"c/a"). This pattern of c/a then detects or discerns Value
> perhaps
>> as a degree of Quality inherent in an object, or even in another subject
>> (when, as we often do, we view a fellow subject as object).
>>
>> I would further suggest that DQ is a force, rather than a sort of material
>> medium (in the artistic sense, i.e. paint), which influences patterns of
> value
>> in a positive way. Much like gravity or magnetism, Dynamic Quality is a
> force
>> or an influence for the Good. Static Quality is the pattern as-latched
> from
>> the last application of DQ. Does this track?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:03 AM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary - I think I agree with you. This why I keep asking whether
> 'subject'
>>> might mean something more than pattern of value. My answer: yes, I think
>>> so: a subject is a point of view, an imaginative power responsible for
> the
>>> patterning of SQ (the world doesn't individuate itself). Platt, I think
>>> that pretty much gives my view on your 'am I mistaken?' question:
>>> Yes. For
>>> Quality doesn't cut itself up, you know. There's a smoking gun here, or
> a
>>> choped bit of firewood, however you want to cohere your metaphors. The
>>> point being: no cuts without cutters. And SQ threads of SQ
>>> patterns are cut
>>> up bits of quality.
>>>
>>> No?
>>>
>>> Elephant
>>>
>>>> From: "Gary Charpentier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:41:15 -0500
>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Subject: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>>>
>>>> I find Webster's dictionary invaluable when sorting out such
>>> questions of
>>>> language. The primary definition of consciousness does not
>>> distinguish it
>>>> from awareness, but subsequent definitions use the word
>>> "awareness" as an
>>>> indicator of consciousness. It has been my (subjective)
>>> experience that one
>>>> does not have to be mentally conscious to be "aware" of
>>> something happening,
>>>> i.e. in a dream. Conversely, one need only ride a motorcycle in heavy
>>>> traffic to realize that the conscious state of fellow motorists
>>> in no way
>>>> implies any real awareness of what they are doing.
>>>>
>>>> I want to take issue with these statements offered by Platt and
>>> Elephant:
>>>>>> You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a
>>> 'contradiction in
>>>>>> terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
>>>>>> threads to be woven and patterned together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am glad to concur on that, but we need to take it a stage further:
>>>>>> SUBJECTS are also patterns of value.
>>>>
>>>> That is such a touchy distinction! I believe, when we designate a human
>>>> being as the SUBJECT in question, that the term "pattern of
>>> value" cannot be
>>>> confined to the static state. While it is true that some humans
>>> seem to be
>>>> very eager to achieve some static pattern of value and not proceed any
>>>> further from there (mindsets), most human subjects exhibit a
>>> preference for
>>>> dynamic quality to enable them to move beyond established
>>> static patterns
>>>> towards something "better". But does this make our human
>>> subject a pattern
>>>> of dynamic value? I don't think so, but I can't articulate exactly why.
>>>> Perhaps this is where some of you folks can help me?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:31 PM
>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point Jonathan - you've made things clearer and brought
>>>>> something to my
>>>>> attention. I haven't thought very much about that way of
>>> putting it and
>>>>> it's pretty important. 'Subject', in so far as it means 'pattern
>>>>> of value'
>>>>> isn't what's aware.
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course, I think that there is something else that
>>>>> 'subject' can mean.
>>>>> Consciousness? It sounds odd to say that consciousness is
>>> aware. Ok: *a*
>>>>> consciousness is aware. But what about the introduction of
>>> numericisation
>>>>> here ("*a*")......
>>>>>
>>>>> Ho hm Jonathan......
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm. And does RMP speak of this 'something else' too?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Elephant
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:20:37 +0300
>>>>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Elephant, Platt, Roger, Marco and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elephant, it's good to see you back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PLATT:
>>>>>>> Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ELEPHANT:
>>>>>> Yes, and my 'slant' on that, if you please, is that patterns of
>>>>> value, being
>>>>>> patterns of SQ, are patterns of *confered* value: complexes of
>>>>> judgements.
>>>>>> You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a
>>> 'contradiction in
>>>>>> terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
>>>>>> threads to be woven and patterned together.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am glad to concur on that, but we need to take it a stage further:
>>>>>> SUBJECTS are also patterns of value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since Elephant wants us to deny the property awareness to
>>>>> objects like atoms
>>>>>> BECAUSE they are patterns, the same reasoning should apply to
>>>>> subjects, in
>>>>>> short, to the whole of SQ.
>>>>>> Once we do this, awareness ceases to exist. I regard this as a
>>>>> step back to
>>>>>> the world of absolute determinism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My own understanding of the MoQ is that there is nothing
>>>>> absolute about the
>>>>>> subject dichotomy. Subjects are also objects to the entity
>>> that does the
>>>>>> conferring of value.
>>>>>> Thus, the division of patterns between objects and subjects
>>> is relative.
>>>>>> For example, one might for the sake of argument regard
>>>>> Elephants opinion of
>>>>>> Shakespeare as subjective, but since he has given it to us in
>>>>> e-mail ("...I
>>>>>> care less for Bill ..."), I can state objectively that
>>> Elephant does not
>>>>>> particularly care for the bard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thus think we should careful about using words like "awareness" as
>>>>>> metaphysical cleavage terms that delineate between subjects and
>>>>> objects. In
>>>>>> particular, we must avoid making any such cleavage absolute.
>>>>> That's what I've
>>>>>> been trying to say since this "awareness" thread started.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>>>>>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>>>>>> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>>>>>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>>>>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>>>>> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>>>>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>>>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>>>> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>>>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>>> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries -
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>
>>
>>
>> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries -
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
