[MD] Intellectual activity

[aesuszynski]

Ham,

You lose me right here:

"Now, were you or I to have no object to experience, no ideas to think 
about,
no sense of "being in this world", what would our awareness consist of?"

because this is an impossibility in my estimation. Being alive means those 
things you talked about, except in the case of someone whose brain isn't 
functioning.

But I will continue to contemplate.

Alice






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual activity


>
> Alice --
>
>
>> Actually I never said anything about the non-existance of a "self" I said
>> that one counld be conscious without being self-aware. Maybe a better 
>> term
>> would be "subconscious", which I think is a part of being conscious. It's
>> just not a part that we are always aware of.  So the part of 
>> consciousness
>> that an infant has access to is a part that is not aware of the 
>> separation
>> between he and the other. That process takes time, maybe years to fully
>> develop.
>
> Let's be clear about what we mean by "self" vs. "self-awareness".   I use
> the term "proprietary awareness" for that very purpose.  It implies
> "subjectivity" -- the cognizant sensibility of a particular individual.
> Proprietary awareness makes the description "being-conscious of
> being-conscious" unnecessary and redundant.  Consciousness is one's being
> aware as a self.  This is a self-evident truth.  (In fact, some here have
> said it's the only empirical truth.)  I don't know about 
> sub-consciousness,
> which I believe went out with the psychologies of Freud and Jung.  But I 
> do
> know that my thoughts and experience are mine only, i.e., proprietary to 
> Ham
> Priday.  I assume that this is also true for your thoughts and 
> experiences.
>
> Now, were you or I to have no object to experience, no ideas to think 
> about,
> no sense of "being in this world", what would our awareness consist of?
> What is individual consciousness (or sub-consciousness, for that matter)
> without content?   Certainly something less than a human being.  I submit
> that the 'tubula rasa' is as good an analogy as any other.  It's the 
> primary
> nothingness from which "being-aware" or differentiation arises.  We each
> come into this world from that primary state; it is the core of 
> "selfness",
> and it is applied to every thought, feeling, and experience written onto
> that blank slate.  In other words, it's the nothingness by which we divide
> Essence into finite beingness.
>
>> But I am an other to others, correct?  But I don't think Blank
>> Slate applies here.
>
> Your physical organism and its behavior is an object to others -- once you
> are born, of course.  But not your feelings, thoughts, or experience. 
> Those
> are proprietary to your self, which means you can only express them
> indirectly, through communication with others.
>
> Do contemplate upon it, Alice.  Most MoQ followers are too ready to 
> dismiss
> the subjective self.  They consider it a byproduct of organic evolution,
> thereby missing the whole point of existential reality.  As a result, 
> their
> objectivist understanding of existence is reduced to the Buddha's sound of
> one hand clapping.
>
> I hope this helps to clarify matters.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>