[MD] MD 4th level - The more autonomous level

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

For some unknown reason your replies are arriving on my personal e-mail box
instead of at the hampday address I set up for philosophy messages.  In
order to get them in the proper box for MD submission I have to copy them
from the personal box, mail them to myself at the hampday address, then
forward them to you.  (This did not happen with Platt's response.)  Those
left-wing gremlins must be at work again!

Arlo, as I see it, the problem with our dialogue is that you're coming at me
from a totally different epistemological perspective.  You see consciousness
arising (emerging) in Nature (organic level?) as an outgrowth of biological
evolution.  Of course I can see this, too.  I've had enough biological
education to understand evolutionary theory and the genetic basis of life
forms, and I'm fully aware of the complexity of neuro-physiological
development.  However, I see these processes as empirical corollaries of
something much more fundamental.

Yes, creation can be explained in terms of natural processes; but the
philosopher seeks an explanation for the origin of these processes and the
essence of Nature.  We must go beyond empirical understanding to answer such
questions.  Since metaphysical truth does not lend itself to empirical
validation, the philosophical approach is to posit hypotheses that suggest a
plausible metaphysical solution.  This is what Pirsig tried to do with his
Quality thesis, and I think he succeeded in establishing a non-materialistic
basis for reality.

Unfortunately, I also think that dismissing proprietary awareness in his
effort to overcome the SO dichotomy was metaphysically unsound.  As others
have pointed out, empirical reality is multiplistic, conditional, and
dynamic, while metaphysical reality is undifferentiated, absolute, and
static.  The terms SQ and DQ are themselves contraposed.  In attempting to
unify the two realities, the author demeans both, and the MoQ is left
without either a primary source or a defined individual.

[Arlo]:
> The "deserted island" has everything to do with getting
> at the origins of man's consciousness. Your proposal is
> that this "consciousness" has NOTHING to do with
> social or cultural structures whatsoever. To say this,
> you would, of course, have to take the posistion that
> a human individual matured in complete isolation from
> other humans who possess the SAME level of
> consciousness as "you" or "me".

OK, let me try to clarify my terms.  Awareness itself -- the property or
capacity to sense or perceive organic sensations -- is fundamental to the
individual.  Consciousness is commonly understood as one's "awareness of
something", inferring objective "contents".  In that sense, contact with the
physical world and social relationships would of course have an effect on
consciousness.  (I don't think this qualification changes my fundamental
position.)

[Arlo]:
> The "deserted island" scenario also allows the question
> to be raised as to the origins, if not social or cultural
> structures, of said "consciousness". The only two
> possibilities would be that (1) consciousness is somehow
> derived/emerged/whatever from specific human genetic
> traits. That deserted island human individual (DIHI) would,
> of course, have the same human DNA, which could
> account for the equivalent development of consciousness.
> Or (2) that consciousness is somehow a "gift" to all
> human individuals from some Supernatural or Divine
> Source, such as a "soul".

You're extemporizing here.  "Supernatural", "Divine", and "Soul" are your
terms, not mine.  Again, you assume that consciousness arises from genetic
processes.  That's the empirical perspective; metaphysically, consciousness
is not a biological derivative.  It's the subjective essent that is
separated from objective otherness in the creation of existence.

[Arlo]:
> You've answered this too, saying that consciousness is a gift,
> given to humans from some Infinite Source. Fair enough.

I prefer to say that man is created with the capability to realize the value
of his existence and to determine his own fate within the constraints of a
relational world.  The autonomy of freedom is his gift.

[Arlo]
> Does consciousness (your and mine) come into existence
> when we are born, or did it already exist somewhere and
> was assigned to us by the Infinite Source? When we die,
> does it dissipate? Is it destroyed? Or does it have continued
> existence?

Existence comes into being as soon as we are conscious of it.  (That, by the
way, is in accord with Pirsig's "Experience=Quality=Reality" formulation.)
Since Essentialism is subjective -- which implies sensible awareness -- the
sensibility of Essence is immutable.  Inasmuch as consciousness is
proprietary to the individual self, it is a "negation" of Essence that
exists only in the conditional (space/time) reality.  The values with which
the individual identifies represent his essential reality.  For a complete
explanation of this ontology, you'll have to read my on-line thesis.

[Arlo]:
> This originating "organic sensibility", I'd say, is found
> in all "living beings". At our birth, a human infant has a
> "comparable" organic sensibility to a cat. However,
> the human organism (to agree with you again) IS wired
> with a trait that has allowed the evolution over historical
> time of social mediation.
> That "trait", as proposed by Michael Tomasello,
> is "shared attention", which he posits has a neurological
> origin. But from this ability, humans have entered a
> evolutionary trajectory that has allowed for, as I said,
> social mediation. It is from this social mediation, that
> the human infant's ability to think symbolically, echo
> the voices of others, and act agentically (in anything
> other than a "very hungry, find food" response).

That is a plausible ontology, but it's an evolutionary process that offers
no purpose or meaning for the human experience.  "Found in all 'living
beings'" is a typical empirical observation that doesn't get to the "why"
and "how" of creation.

As for your editorial, I would have to go back and extract it from my
primary mailbox.  If there's anything significant in this P.S. that you want
me to comment on, please include it in the body of your next message.

I've got some Christmas errands to perform, so I'm going to have to stop
here.  Thanks for your willingness to engage me in this discussion.

Regards,
Ham