From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 16:25:57 BST
Greetings Platt --
I don't know the extent of your interest in this subject, but am certainly
happy to have your contributions. Please note that credit for "The
Essentialist Challenge" goes to you, as I wouldn't have had the temerity to
suggest it. (I will admit, however, to having a philosophical strategy
here.) And I promise not to mention Intellect again in this discussion
unless someone else brings it up.
Your description of Consciousness in intriguing, albeit somewhat patterned
on the sci-fi/New Age model:
> For starters, I believe consciousness to be a force in
> the cosmos, an energy field of value potential. But, proving it is another
> matter. :-)
Let me make some preliminary comments to show you where I'm coming from.
I'll "run these up the flagpole", as they say in the ad game, and see what
they produce. I've quoted the following statement by William James in my
thesis because I think it can serve as a springboard for insight on the
proprietary nature of Consciousness:
"One great splitting of the whole universe is made by each of us, and for
each of us almost all of the interest attaches to one of the halves: but we
all draw the line of division between them in a different place. When I say
that we call the two halves by the same names, and that these names are 'me'
and 'not-me', respectively, it will at once be seen what I mean." --
"Principles of Psychology"
To me, the most remarkable thing about existence is the proprietary nature
of the conscious 'me'. We can't really apportion that 'me' as "half" of the
experienced universe because everything in the universe is an "other" to it.
'Me' doesn't constitute even an infinitesimal fraction of the universe. It
is dimensionless, immeasurable. Yet, Consciousness is the only identity
that can truly be called "self". Thus, we have self-consciousness -- the
localized proprietary awareness that can never be mistaken for some other
self. But when we try to define "selfness" we run into the very same
problem we confront when trying to define God or the essential source. It
has no definable attributes. The "self" is an empirical nothingness. (Keep
that in mind: you'll see later why it's metaphysically significant.)
Descartes' most famous assertion is: "I think, therefore I am." But he
hadn't defined "selfness", because the conscious thinking-self is first of
all an
awareness of otherness. And what one is aware of are the "contents" of
one's awareness. Lacking that content, the venerable philosopher would have
no basis on which to claim his existence. Since thoughts are the
impressions gained from sensibility of a world outside us, we can know only
that we are the 'selves' that are aware of them. Except for the biological
organism with which we identify our self, and which others know only as an
object of their awareness, Descartes was simply wrong. His Cogito hadn't
proven the existence of the philosopher's "proprietary self" (James's 'me').
And obviously, there was no need to prove the existence of himself as a
living person, since that was an established empirical fact.
So where does this leave us? We depend on our brain and nervous system for
the sensory experience to construct our private universe. But these organic
accessories and their functions are not the 'me' James was alluding to. As
"particulars" of our biological connection with otherness, their existence
is an empirical fact. Because specificity is "universal", we can all share
in our ideas about the world, as well. But we can't share, directly anyway,
our private impressions of the universe, how we feel about its particulars,
how our proprietary self relates to them. In other words, "selfness" is
irreducible and its awareness is non-transferable.
I have some plausible solutions to these paradoxes; however, I'll save them
for the proper time. Let's see how the others react to this emphasis on a
"proprietary" self. I fully expect some to reject the concept outright as
"overblown egoism", or something equivalent. But at least you have provided
an opportunity to begin our discussion at what to me is the most logical
"jumping off" place for philosophy.
Meantime, maybe you will provide us with a fuller explanation of your
"energy field"
Force Consciousness.
Essentially (as always),
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 23 2005 - 01:54:29 BST