"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GT6Eb.416936$ao4.1352265@attbi_s51...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:Qo%Db.326$dr1.224@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

There is commonality and difference -- they both interpret and
impose their subjective value systems, but there are experiences
that they can never share, and so some of these interpretations and
values will differ.

"never share"?

Are you absolutely certain about that? How can that be proven?

Have you ever experienced pre-menstrual syndrome?

Do you know what life
is like with more Estrogen and Progesterone running around your
circulatory system than Testosterone?

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_U6Eb.416951$ao4.1352501@attbi_s51...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:jn%Db.324$dr1.241@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U3YDb.413303$275.1291611@attbi_s53...

It is not possible for a word to have multiple meanings, some less
"accepted" than others? How would these secondary meanings have
come into existence with your only "accepted interpretations"
attitude?

So you're trying to start a new movement?

Continuing an old one...

Where's the evidence for that?

"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:IKbEb.3$h97.2@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_U6Eb.416951$ao4.1352501@attbi_s51...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:jn%Db.324$dr1.241@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U3YDb.413303$275.1291611@attbi_s53...

It is not possible for a word to have multiple meanings, some
less
"accepted" than others? How would these secondary meanings
have
come into existence with your only "accepted interpretations"
attitude?

So you're trying to start a new movement?

Continuing an old one...

Where's the evidence for that?

Since I didn't invent the MOQ philosophy I would say it is self
evident.

You are really married with the "only one way to think" philosophy.
You
might want to open your mind a bit.

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pGhEb.78456$8y1.284532@attbi_s52...

"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:IKbEb.3$h97.2@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_U6Eb.416951$ao4.1352501@attbi_s51...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:jn%Db.324$dr1.241@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U3YDb.413303$275.1291611@attbi_s53...

It is not possible for a word to have multiple meanings, some
less
"accepted" than others? How would these secondary meanings
have
come into existence with your only "accepted interpretations"
attitude?

So you're trying to start a new movement?

Continuing an old one...

Where's the evidence for that?

Since I didn't invent the MOQ philosophy I would say it is self
evident.

You are really married with the "only one way to think" philosophy.
You
might want to open your mind a bit.

If "opening my mind a bit" entails subscribing

to a circular philosophy
like Pirsig's then I'll leave that to the likes of your good self, and
I'll retain my old closed-mind belief that circular arguments have no
explanatory power. If you'd mentioned this in the first place then I
wouldn't have wasted my time in debate with you.

"Jahnu" <jahnu@india.com> wrote in message

The logical conclusion to draw, since we have no recollection of ever
having not existed, is that we have always existed. In this life -
throughout all your bodily and mental transformations, from boyhood,
to youth, to old age - the self remains the same. So the self remains
constan even though the body and mind change. Why think it will
discontinue at the final transformation - death? You just pass over
into another body, that's all.

Nope, nope. That is not logical. Not remembering means that it is unknown.
One can not draw a logical conclusion from and unknown. That is the fallacy
of appeal to ignorance.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:30:18 GMT, "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote:


"Jahnu" <jahnu@india.com> wrote in message

The logical conclusion to draw, since we have no recollection of ever
having not existed, is that we have always existed. In this life -
throughout all your bodily and mental transformations, from boyhood,
to youth, to old age - the self remains the same. So the self remains
constan even though the body and mind change. Why think it will
discontinue at the final transformation - death? You just pass over
into another body, that's all.

Nope, nope. That is not logical. Not remembering means that it is
unknown.
One can not draw a logical conclusion from and unknown. That is the
fallacy
of appeal to ignorance.

The fallacy and appeal to ignorance is to say that we don't know where
consciousness came from or that it comes from matter. To say that
consciousness comes from consciousness is only logical and reasonable.

In this life -
throughout all your bodily and mental transformations, from boyhood,
to youth, to old age - the self remains the same. So the self remains
constan even though the body and mind change. Why think it will
discontinue at the final transformation - death? You just pass over
into another body, that's all.

"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:r8iEb.470$YK1.241144@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

Circular? Never heard that one before. Please enlighten me.

If you are familiar enough with the philosophy to discard it, how is
it that
you did not recognize it in the first place?

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XErEb.146482$_M.717496@attbi_s54...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:r8iEb.470$YK1.241144@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

Circular? Never heard that one before. Please enlighten me.

If you are familiar enough with the philosophy to discard it, how is
it that
you did not recognize it in the first place?

I've about as much enthusiasm for discussing Pirsigs cranky ethics as I
have for discussing why the bible must be literal truth. I wish you'd
said so in the first place. If you wish to indulge in such a discussion
then start a thread on the subject, but this time be up-front about it.

"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:31xEb.9$vR3.20226@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

I've about as much enthusiasm for discussing Pirsigs cranky ethics
as I
have for discussing why the bible must be literal truth. I wish
you'd
said so in the first place. If you wish to indulge in such a
discussion
then start a thread on the subject, but this time be up-front about
it.

I had no such interest. You just kept asking your narrow minded
questions
and I was presenting you with an alternate way of thinking.

If you have no desire for an alternate way of thinking, why are you
here?

A closed mind is a terrible thing...

PS it was his metaphysics that were cranky, the ethics are fairly run
of
the mill...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:59:56 GMT, "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> wrote:


"Jahnu" <jahnu@india.com> wrote in message

But it is also possible that we have always existed. It makes more
sense to say that we have always existed than to say we just woke up
one day at the right chemical reaction and became aware of everything.
Since matter doesn't display any of the properties of consciousness it
makes little sense to suggest it be the cause of it. It makes more
sense to postulate two separate energies - consciousness and matter.
One is the observer and the other is the observed.

We don't remember when we did not exist for obvious reasons, but we don't
remember always existing either; the logical conclusion is that we did not
always exist.

The logical conclusion to draw, since we have no recollection of ever
having not existed, is that we have always existed. In this life -
throughout all your bodily and mental transformations, from boyhood,
to youth, to old age - the self remains the same. So the self remains
constan even though the body and mind change. Why think it will
discontinue at the final transformation - death? You just pass over
into another body, that's all.

www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:46 +0530, Jahnu <jahnu@india.com> wrote:

If we can't remember our infancy, does it follow than we had none?
(Practically speaking, what we haven't experienced or can't remember
can't be said to exist, at least for us.)

But we know we had an infancy through the the accounts of others and through

I call that enduring thing that accompanies our whole career
'consciousness'.
It is the unchanging observer of all that is objectified and perceived.
While
the body and the mind constantly change, consciousness remains the same
'I'.
It has no features of it's own that might indicate individuality.
When it is there, 'I' is there. When it is not, nothing is.
It actually is our only living, indispensible part.

But why wait for rebirth? That same identical 'I' is in all beings
already.

If it does not change, then it can not be considered to be alive. If it

Some will say that consciousness is merely a brain process in space-time.
But there is the difficulty of reconciling electro-chemistry with our
actual 'conscious' experience of sight, hearing, taste, touch, odor,
emotion and thought -- the mind-body, or 'qualia' problem.

(Which is only a problem when you look through the wrong
end of the telescope. All External realities are admitted to
be necessarily in the mind, assumed to be in a brain, which is also
apprehended by the mind -- presumably by it's bootstraps.)

I don't see any problem. We percieve reality through our senses and

Another problem with the materialist space-time position is the nature
of the conscious 'now' that is our only frame of existence.
For the concept of time to exist, there must be the timelessly
brief 'now' to divide past and future. 'Now' is too small to measure,
but where does it begin and end? Conscious 'now' is immeasurably
short and long at the same time, not likely in measurable space-time.

The brain is not infinite. It can not percieve an infinite number of

Time is only conceivable from a position outside of space-time.
Consciousness within space-time (as it is scientifically conceived as a
pre-existing four dimensional block) would see past and future alike,
not sequentially but spacially, losing the 'now', and putting an end to
'time'.

"Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VtCEb.85489$8y1.291344@attbi_s52...
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:31xEb.9$vR3.20226@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...

I've about as much enthusiasm for discussing Pirsigs cranky ethics
as I
have for discussing why the bible must be literal truth. I wish
you'd
said so in the first place. If you wish to indulge in such a
discussion
then start a thread on the subject, but this time be up-front about
it.

I had no such interest. You just kept asking your narrow minded
questions
and I was presenting you with an alternate way of thinking.

lol! I saw it the other way round.

All a matter of subjective
perspective
then ;-)


If you have no desire for an alternate way of thinking, why are you
here?

"Alternative" covers many views ranging from the fascinating to the
ridiculous.

A closed mind is a terrible thing...

Your descent from reasoned argument to emotive argument is an indication
that this debate has run its course.

PS it was his metaphysics that were cranky, the ethics are fairly run
of
the mill...

"Keynes" <Keynes@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vp26uvsq9ovssfhrdpmui0794ukcst9aso@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:46 +0530, Jahnu <jahnu@india.com> wrote:

If we can't remember our infancy, does it follow than we had none?
(Practically speaking, what we haven't experienced or can't remember
can't be said to exist, at least for us.)

But we know we had an infancy through the the accounts of others and through
witnessing the infancy of others. Memory is not the only means of knowing
something about ourselves. For the question of where we always existed or
not, there is no knowledge from any source though.

I call that enduring thing that accompanies our whole career
'consciousness'.
It is the unchanging observer of all that is objectified and perceived.
While
the body and the mind constantly change, consciousness remains the same
'I'.
It has no features of it's own that might indicate individuality.
When it is there, 'I' is there. When it is not, nothing is.
It actually is our only living, indispensible part.

But why wait for rebirth? That same identical 'I' is in all beings
already.

If it does not change, then it can not be considered to be alive. If it
does not contain our identity, then it is not us.

Such a thing, whether it exists or not, would have no relevance to an
afterlife.

Some will say that consciousness is merely a brain process in space-time.
But there is the difficulty of reconciling electro-chemistry with our
actual 'conscious' experience of sight, hearing, taste, touch, odor,
emotion and thought -- the mind-body, or 'qualia' problem.

(Which is only a problem when you look through the wrong
end of the telescope. All External realities are admitted to
be necessarily in the mind, assumed to be in a brain, which is also
apprehended by the mind -- presumably by it's bootstraps.)

I don't see any problem. We percieve reality through our senses and
construct a model of that reality in our minds.

Another problem with the materialist space-time position is the nature
of the conscious 'now' that is our only frame of existence.
For the concept of time to exist, there must be the timelessly
brief 'now' to divide past and future. 'Now' is too small to measure,
but where does it begin and end? Conscious 'now' is immeasurably
short and long at the same time, not likely in measurable space-time.

The brain is not infinite. It can not percieve an infinite number of
infinitessimal nows. It will necessarily quantify each moment in time by
the speed at which it is able to percieve changes in the state of it senses.
The length of time of each quantum will be determined by the speed at which
the brain is able to process the information.

So "now" will not be infinitessimal, but a period of a few milliseconds.

Time is only conceivable from a position outside of space-time.
Consciousness within space-time (as it is scientifically conceived as a
pre-existing four dimensional block) would see past and future alike,
not sequentially but spacially, losing the 'now', and putting an end to
'time'.

Consciousness within space-time percieves time by using memory. It builds
and image of the world in one moment, remembers that image, then builds
another image, and compares it to the to the previous one, and detects the
changes. It does this over and over, enabling it to percieve movement,
velocity and acceleration. This constant changing of the world around us is
what is percieved as time.

Outside of time-space, the universe is percieved as static. All points in
time join to become a line. There is no movement or change, just an eternal
infinite now. Time looses all conventional meaning.

A consciousness outside of time looses its ability to percieve anything.

Perception is a process of looking at the world,
and then understanding it. Learning from it.

Without time nothing can change. No process can
function. Perception can not take place. Learning can not take place.
Understanding can not take place. Indeed, consciousness is a slave to time;
and it can not escape the physical space-time-matter universe that is
essential to it's existence.