Elephant -
Thanks for the reply - I beleive we're getting closer to the crux of the
matter, if 'crux' is something we want to be close to. Anyway, you said:
ELEPHANT:
You've found a point there. Scoring it, however, obscures the fact that I
didn't say that consciousness could be an attribute. I said that
*enlightened consciousness* could be an attribute. It's the enlightenment
that's the attribute, not the consciousness. And the fact that your
enlightenment is not automatically my enlightenment appears to demonstrate,
to me atleast, that what the two enlightenments are an attibute of, in these
two different cases, are two different consciousnesses. That doesn't feel
like an unreasonable observation to make, and your response thus far has no
bearing on it.
I reply: Yes, you're correct - i was focusing on 'consciousness' and not
'enlightened' because there can't be attributes to something that doesn't
exist in the first place, in this case 'different consciousnesses'. If the
individual only exists as a static pattern of value and DQ is the only
reality, what is it that's enlightened? Enlightment can be described in
different ways, but the way I understand it, it is the ability to the see
reality as it is, without the influence of my own constructed point of view,
without getting stuct in the static quality levels that perminate our
day-to-day lives. In that sense, our enlightenment is the same, we both can
see what's really there. Your EXPERIENCE of enlightenment can certainly be
different than mine, since our points of view are different, but that is a
static description of what has occured, a report of the experience, not the
experience itself.
I had said:
MARTY:
> Elephant said: "It seems to me that you're still treating *consciousness*
> as a product....
>
> Me: I didn't mean to give that impression; Consciousness is certainly not
a
> product or a process. I was merely trying to point out that I believe
those
> who think consciousness is created by brains are wrong.
And you replied:
ELEPHANT:
I was aware of that. And you must have been aware that I never thought that
consciousness was created by brains. For that reason your making that point
in a conversation with *me* perplexed me. It lead me to think that you must
have been meaning that it was created by something other than brains -
that's what you might call 'conversational implicature'. In other words: I
couldn't think of another reason for you to make such a damm obvious
statement. But it may be, of course, that what I regard as obvious is
peculiar to myself, and that you thought this truth needed saying.
I explain: I didn't intend to bestow the 'stuff' belief upon you, but since
this is a public forum I just wanted to be sure to clarify my opinion -
Now this is where it gets interesting;
>
> Elephant said:
> Persons, Consciousnesses - these are different concepts. 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. Consciousness and personality are not the
same.
MARTY:
> Me: No, consciousness and personality are NOT the same, but the way I
look
> at consciousness, you seem to be mixing the two up. Your personality,
your
> 'me', is your creation. It is created when you (we) begin to
differentiate,
> name and objectify. There is no 'you' other than your consciousness,
which
> we often refer to as 'experience' or 'perception' - there's nothing else
> there.
ELEPHANT:
I'll explain (because you've missed my point entirely). I am am trying to
show that we individuate consciousnesses for reasons entirely unconnected
with personality. Hence the contrast between souls and persons. Your
argument seems to be that insofar as we transcend personality, we cease to
be distinct individuals. That assertion is false.
It is true that in so far as we transcend personality we cease to have
distinct *goals*, private fantasies, self-serving histories e.t.c.. But a
man who has transcended personality and become both enlightened and
compassionate (for the two are one) does not thereby destroy the
individuation of his consciousness. It is *his* consciousness which is
enlightened, it is *he* who is compassionate, it is *other souls* to whom he
is compassionate. Do you follow?
Person and consciousness are not the same. Contrary to what you say there
*is* a 'you' other than your consciousness and the name for that other you
is the *person*. It's the *person* which must be transcended, indeed got
rid of. Consider 'selfless'. *What* is 'selfless' an attribute of? A
consciousness.
That's all I can think to add today.
Elephant
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
