[MD] subject / object logic

[Joseph Maurer]

On Monday 13 August 2007 10:15:41 PM Ham writes to Platt:

[Ham]
I was taught by someone in my youth to "always consider the source." That 
Google would lead you to such a bizzare definition of consciousness is 
unconscionable.

Checking the word in my handy Rune's Dictionary of Philosophy, I learned 
that it stems from the Latin "conscire", to know, to be cognizant of. I 
also learned that the 18th century Irish mathematical genius Sr. William Hamilton (no relation) claimed that consciousness is indefinable. He said: 
"Consciousness cannot be defined: we may be ourselves fully aware what 
consciousness is, but we cannot without confusion convey to others a 
definition of what we ourselves clearly apprehend. The reason is plain: 
consciousness lies at the root of all knowledge." There, now. Does that 
ease your frustration, Platt?

> Thanks, Ham. Your glossary of terms helps.
> I wonder if others here agree with it.

If we don't find out soon, I'd conclude that others don't really care.


Hi Ham and Platt,

Thanks for an interesting discussion! Ham, if I apply your ontology to ‘consciousness’ correct me if I misunderstand. It seems "essence" is "a level of awareness". "Nothingness" seems to be "I am empty". "Existence" seems to be "consciousness". IMO The MOQ agrees that "Consciousness cannot be defined" in that it is the "social level" of undefined MOQ-DQ.

In the record of evolution IMO "hominid" evolves to "homo sapiens" and the clue are the cave paintings on the wall describing "the other" outside of me. 
If I am empty and you are empty, IMO our relationship leads to a further evolution of "law" which is the undefined "intellectual level" MOQ-DQ.

Joe



Platt --

> I find the definition as I edited it to be an accurate
> description of what I believe. As for the source,
> I found it simply by entering "define: consciousness"
> in Google. ... As for your implied suggestion that if a
> source is is questionable one should avoid it entirely,
> I take exception. For example, the current debate
> over global warming is a debate over reliable sources
> as much as anything else. Same goes for much of
> philosophy.

I was taught by someone in my youth to "always consider the source."  That 
Google would lead you to such a bizzare definition of consciousness is 
unconscionable.

Checking the word in my handy Rune's Dictionary of Philosophy, I learned 
that it stems from the Latin "conscire", to know, to be cognizant of.  I 
also learned that the 18th century Irish mathematical genius Sr. William 
Hamilton (no relation) claimed that consciousness is indefinable.  He said: 
"Consciousness cannot be defined: we may be ourselves fully aware what 
consciousness is, but we cannot without confusion convey to others a 
definition of what we ourselves clearly apprehend.  The reason is plain: 
consciousness lies at the root of all knowledge."  There, now.  Does that 
ease your frustration, Platt?

> Thanks, Ham. Your glossary of terms helps.
> I wonder if others here agree with it.

If we don't find out soon, I'd conclude that others don't really care.

> I also wonder if you have a "source" for your definitions. :-)

Yeah, me.  (It's called my "intuitive intellection".)

> Always fun to converse with you, Ham.

Same here.
And do try to avoid stepping on UTOE's paw.

Best,
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/