Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 00:50:35 BST

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Self-consciousness"

    Andy,

    (I know, you asked David, but I can't resist)

    > Hi David,
    >
    > Since I am having such a difficult time understanding Scott, could you
    please
    > explain to me how something as obscure as "trying to explain perception
    through
    > the products of perception" can throw any favorable light on the work of
    > SHeldrake over the other conventional "materialist" explanations? If we
    are not
    > allowed to explain experience through what we experience, then what are we
    left
    > with?

    Nothing. Mu. Consciousness is self-contradictory, so the only logic for
    talking about consciousness is the logic of contradictory identity. So the
    more sensible thing is to assume consciousness as a given, and not something
    that could have evolved out of non-conscious processes. This is, of course,
    the same move that Pirsig made with Quality.

    > How does Sheldrake avoid this cunumdrum?

    That I don't know, but from what I've understood he doesn't need to explain
    consciousness. Only materialists do, or the whole Darwinist world view falls
    apart.

    - Scott

    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 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 00:55:37 BST