[MD] meaning, awareness and understanding

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Platt --



> You may be right about an amoeba's inability to value anything, but
> there's another side to the story from philosophers past and present.
> If interested in seeing what others have said about the ubiquity of
> mind, consciousness and/or awareness in the universe, may I
> suggest you take a gander at:
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10531
>
> I think at least you'll agree that there's a legitimate intellectual
> argument for the presence of mind throughout the cosmos.

I took a gander and found this fundamental definition of panpsychism:

"Panpsychism, with its conception of mind as a general phenomenon of nature,
uniquely links being and mind.  More than a theory of mind, it is a
meta-theory--a statement about theories of mind rather than a theory in
itself.  Panpsychism can parallel almost every current theory of mind; it
simply holds that, no matter how one conceives of mind, such mind applies to
all things."

Of course being is linked to mind.

If you and the MoQers are solid on anything, it's the principle that
experience is the basis of cognizant knowledge.  If this is true, then is it
any wonder that the form and direction (value) of the experienced universe
reflects the meaning and purpose of the self that creates it?

The point I'm trying to get across to Scott is that whatever value there is,
it must be sensible -- i.e., capable of conscious awareness.  The
proprietary self is in essence that capability.  Nothing experienced in the
objective world of experience defines "being-aware" but the cognizant
subject of that experience.  That's you and me and Scott.  All this
chit-chat about a semiotic universe and pansychic biogenesis reduces to
individual cognizance.  And since we are all a microcosm of the same
Essence, the order and teleology of what we experience is common to all.

In short, Value is implied by (pre-supposes) Awareness.  Awareness is not a
collective attribute of biological or physical nature; it is unique to each
specific subject, and subjective experience is made universal by  the
essential Value that actualizes being as is object.  If we ourselves are the
creators of our reality, it is only logical that the value we see in it is
our own.  Is this valuistic paradigm too esoteric for anyone capable of
understanding Quality as the fundamental empirical reality?

Essentially yours,
Ham