[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

Ham Priday hampday1 at verizon.net
Thu Jun 15 11:07:49 PDT 2006


Hi Steve [Matt mentioned]:


Are we "begging" questions, or simply asking them?

I believe I've been quite straightfoward in asking the main question of this
discussion, and in trying to clarify our respective positions.  But I'm
still not clear as to whether, if we take Matt's suggestion and "run as far
away as possible from the [SOM] distinction'," we are thereby
invalidating subjectivity.

Subjective consciousness may not be important in the MoQ (although, for the
life of me, I can't see why), but it is the primary existent in
Essentialism.  To speak of consciousness as patterns of thought by an
emergent creature who borrows language and intellect from a collective
source does not define subjectivity.  Conscious awareness is not some
complex neuro-organic behavioral or response mechanism evolved from nature
(or society).  It is the mode of "being-aware" in which reality become
cognizant to the individual.  Proprietary awareness is essential to
existence because the world of appearances (i.e., physical reality) could
not exist without it.

What this means is that reality is not "out there" somewhere beyond us, on
call for us to "tap into" in the ripeness of our development.  Reality is
the content of every individual's awareness.  WE make it "physically real"
(beingness) by experiencing it in finite increments separated in time and
space.  What IS "out there" is precisely what WE are NOT: undifferentiated
Essence.  The bond that connects this self-other dichotomy is Value -- that
is, the Value of essential Source.

Now if a reality concept predictated on proprietary awareness is
incompatible with the MoQ thesis, just tell me so, and I'll desist from
trying to make my case.  Otherwise, please understand that when references
are made to Consciousness, Sensibility, Perception, Intellect, Ideas,
Morality, or Value, they will be recognized as "subjective" from my
perspective.

I appreciate your patience in sorting this out with me, Steve.

Essentially yours,
Ham





More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list