Dear elephant, Platt, Roger, [Bodvar, if you are listening] and all,
ELEPHANT
>However, while I won't rush to speak for Roger, I can atleast point out
where Jonathan has got it 180 degrees wrong in his characterisation of *my*
thought that the awareness of atoms is an absurdity.
?????
Elephant, I don't know why you think I am out to get you. I was merely
responding to your question to Platt "Why is it essential to the MOQ that
atoms be aware?".
I thought that what I wrote was an answer to that question, and find Platt's
ecstatic response gratifying (Platt and I have a history of alternating
between bitter disagreements and ecstatic agreements).
>You think I am assuming that atoms have objective existence,
Elephant, you are the one jumping to conclusions. I have read too many of your
contributions to make such a mistake. I would like especially to single out
your elegant statement of yesterday:
ELEPHANT:
BTW there's more to mind than making choices - there's creating the stuff to
choose between as well.
Yes, Yes and again Yes.
Bodvar would probably get upset at the mere mention of the word mind, but I
see in your statement something very much like his SOLAQI (Subject-Object
logic as the Q-Intellectual level) proposal. Whether you call it mind or
intellect, what you describe is something that creates patterns of "choices +
choosers", and thus "objectifies" those patterns. Rather than discuss this
further now, I'd rather see what others have to say.
ELEPHANT:
Jonathan, you are quite wrong to suppose that my objection to conscious
atoms arises from the thought that events happen objectively. Precisely the
reverse.
To be honest, I don't really understand what your objection is, and if you
really have one.
Are you saying that consciousness=mind? This might be an issue if someone had
said that atoms are SELF-aware, but that is not the case (The only "self
awareness" I am sure about is my own - Descartes had a point!).
ELEPHANT:
My thought is that since, "objectively" (in the sense of "really") and prior
to our daily fictionalising, there are no such things as events or objects
(only DQ), it follows that there is no particular thing out there to *be*
aware. The being of those discrete particulars such as atoms thus depends
on the mind that does the active cutting up, and this is the categorical
difference between atoms and minds.
You have my full concurrence on that . . .
Elephant, you have certainly explained your stance, and I see no area of
substantial disagreement.
Is there one?
Jonathan
P.S. to PLATT
I modestly claim to have made many brilliant statements in past posts, and so
have you. We all have. Usually they slip by unnoticed, but sometimes they are
received by a mind that just happens to be ready and waiting at the right
time. I've lately been reading some Salman Rushdie - hard going, but his gems
of philosophical wisdom keep coming. I wonder if my participation here makes
me receptive. Maybe I should post some of them occasionally.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:10 BST