From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 12:34:48 BST
Hi Ham,
Platt previously
> > Two questions from my post of 9/9 in the subject of
> > "Conscious/MOQ, definition of:"
> >
> > You identify the "I" that knows me as nonphysical
> > awareness. I presume such awareness is also characteristic
> > of all life forms, but not nonlife forms like protons and
> > atoms and such. Is that correct?
> I consider any awareness a proprietary non-physical experience.
> By "proprietary" I mean possessed by and identified as the
> "self" of the organism or creature experiencing it. This definition rules
> out electro-mechanical responses exhibited by single-celled animals or
> other organisms which have no localized or "individually centered"
> sensibility. (The fact that biologists cannot draw a line specifically by
> species is inconsequential.)
You draw a line for awareness at organisms that have no localized
sensibility, yet deny that the line can be drawn for specific species.
Further, you say an organism to be aware must experience a self identity.
So does my cat have self-awareness? How about a frog? Does a jellyfish
have a localized sensibility? By not being specific, Ham, you leave me
grasping for understanding..
> You are correct that I do not attribute the
> actions or movements of nuclear particles, electro-magnetic materials,
> celestial bodies, air and water streams, biological evolution, or the
> collective culture to awareness.
OK. But that raises the questions of when, how and why non-physical
awareness comes into existence. At what stage of evolution does awareness
suddenly emerge? Who or what caused it to pop up at that particular time
in that particular way?
> > Does that mean if there is no awareness
> > of a physical object or event, the object or event
> > doesn't exist? If so, how does that different from
> > philosophical Idealism which I understand to
> > mean there are no "real objects" behind our perceptions.
> Since I define "existence" as that which is experienced in space/time, the
> fact that objects and events may not be "real" in the metaphysical sense
> does not negate the awareness concept. In other words, I see no conflict
> in this concept from the perspective of either the Idealist or the
> materialist.
Please explain what you mean by "not real in the metaphysical sense." I
thought metaphysics was about reality, not about what is not real.
I assumed your 'awareness concept' includes the existence of objects and
events to be "aware of." The question is: do those objects and events
exists if no one is aware of them? I believe your answer was "No," but I'm
not sure since you say a materialist would agree. .
> > Starting around 9/7 I asked you take it "step by step"
> > in an effort on my part to understand your Essence philosophy.
> I assumed you would be following up with specific questions in a continuing
> dialog. Again, I'm uncertain of your interest in metaphyics, inasmuch as
> you don't appear to be active in these threads.
My interest is in understanding you. When you say things like "I think
Essence has a 'need' to sense its 'absoluteness' from the perspective of
the infinitessimal. In other words, I don't think existence occurs so much
by 'natural law' as by what theologists would call 'divine will.' " I'm
bewildered.
I guess I'm just not up to your high level of philosophical knowledge and
sophistication to be able to participate in your metaphysical threads.. So
I wouldn't blame you for not wasting your time answering my questions, but
rather spending that time conversing with others who are at your level of
expertise. No hard feelings either way.
Best,
Platt
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 20 2005 - 12:37:19 BST