From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 08:03:19 BST
Reinier (and others brave enough to take up the challenge) --
I've had a few thoughts since my last post to you, the first of them
concerning this statement you made on 9/12 which I passed by without
comment:
> There is no fundamental difference between the one molecule
> experiencing another molecule, and a human being experiencing an
> emotion.
I still don't understand how anyone could assume that an inanimate object
experiences. But, that example aside, I recall while trying to learn basic
electronics in the Signal Corps that an instructor would occasionally say
something like, "the anode sees this as a minus charge on the filament and
closes the circuit." This attribution of perception to a circuit element
was his way of reducing a complex equation involving Ohm's law to the
familiar terms of human sensation and behavior.
I wonder if your statement above is not based on a similar analogue. If so,
we are no longer talking about "experience" as such, but about objects that
BEHAVE as if they experienced; like mechanisms designed with artificial
intelligence, for example. Certainly the dynamics of teleology can be
expressed in terms of human behavior. We sometimes speak of a frozen nut on
an appliance panel in that manner: "That nut just doesn't want to turn," we
say. It doesn't mean that the rusty nut has a will of its own; it simply
means that it BEHAVES as if it did.
This is what bothered me about the dictionary definition of Consciousness
that included the term "showing realization" (a behavior pattern) as well as
"having realization" (a subjective awareness). All this talk about patterns
and "collective consciousness" in the MoQ almost invites this kind of
misconception. In fact, I'm beginning to think the MD people have so
blinded themselves to S/O that they don't really see the distinction! It
may explain why I'm having so much difficulty getting through to these
folks.
This leads me to another thought regarding your assertion that consciousness
is the result of experience, rather than its source or cause. I'm not happy
with my restatement of this issue in your terms. I said that experience was
the result of a conscious creator, and that's wrong. It's wrong because we
cannot assign relational attributes to a non-relational source. Essence is
indefinable in finite terms. (Don't know any "infinite" terms? What about
Absolute? Oneness? Undifferentiated? Omnipresent? Omnipotent? Not-other?
How do you feel about Negational? )
Anyway, what I want to say -- and this is for the MoQers as well -- is that
there is no consciousness prior to differentiation. And there is no
differentiation in Essence. So, how does existence happen?
I had wanted to avoid getting into my Creation hypothesis, but I can see
we're at the starting gate and can almost hear the firing shot. So, for
those who haven't read my thesis, here goes. I'll strive for utmost
simplicity ...
If we think of "absoluteness" as "absolute positivity" (even if just for
purposes of discussion), we deny its negativity and make Essence a bipolar
entity. This concept of course violates the principle that we can't assign
relational attributes to the non-relational source. But Nicholas de Cusa
allowed as how Essence was the not-other in which there is an other implied.
Suppose this not-other contained within itself an expression of its
"not-otherness"? Would that expression not logically be a negation of
otherness -- a negated other? [Pause for reflection.]
Have we impugned the integrity of our undifferentiated source? No, Essence
remains absolute and immutable. But it now has "character" --
perhaps some will want to call it Quality. Its character or Quality is that
of a "negational" source. What does that mean? Simply that Essence
constantly "denies" its otherness. (Possibly some will see this as Dynamic
Quality.) Well, then, what IS this otherness that Essence denies?
Do you see where I'm going? We need Difference to create an other. Essence
is undifferentiated, static, immutable, omnipotent -- and negational. By
negating (or denying) otherness, Essence creates difference as a negated
other; and difference is relational. Now we can talk in relational
(space/time) terms. The first or primary thing that arises from this
negation is the denied Essence (essent) which I call the "negate". The
negate is a not-other, so it has that in common with its Creator. But it is
also a "nothingness" that finds itself "attached", as it were, to Essence.
In a manner of speaking, the negate is a not-other looking at Essence as its
"other". What does it see?
You all know the answer. But I'll describe it in my own special way: The
negate sees what Essence is not. Its nothingness penetrates Essence to form
a fragmented image consisting of multiplicity, space/time relations,
qualitative and quantitative attributes, motion and transition, finite
limits -- all from a vantage point that is perceived as its self. It also
reacts to these phenomena differentially, feeling its self-identified
organism in various states of joy, sorrow, pain, desire, contentment,
disgust, exhilaration -- all of which "color" or characterize its primary
relation to the undifferentiated, not-other source.
That is my hypothesis in a nutshell. (Notice that I didn't once mention the
word "consciousness".) Admittedly, it raises more questions than it
answers, such as: "What accounts for the particular things perceived and
their specific cosmic arrangement? Why is this "cosmic template" universal
for all subjects, while its perception is proprietary to the individual?
Are time and space pre-intellectually designed into the template or
constructs of the intellect? I don't have the answers to these questions,
and probably never will. But it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of this miracle
that is our life-experience. Besides, if we could know it all, it wouldn't
be miraculous. (Some might say it wouldn't have any value.)
(I'll take questions from the class now. Please be kind.)
Essentially yours,
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 : Tue Sep 13 2005 - 08:08:40 BST