[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 06 March 2007 1:14 AM Jos writes to Joe:

Hi Jos (Ham can now see the two names together)

[Jos]Hi Joe
Much though I love to disagree with said pair, I feel the starting point 
that "awareness" comes before reality the best one available.


[Joe] I do not agree that "awareness comes before reality-existence" is a 
meaningful starting point to explicate "existence-reality". I do not 
experience the absolute. Change is evident and to require a logical absolute 
of "awareness before reality-existence change" is mathematical dogma. At the 
intellectual level evolution-change, is based in law. What law? The level of 
Proprietary awareness (social level) examines individuals and sees 
relationships which evolve into laws a higher level, the intellectual level. 
IMO In each individual sentient there is a mechanical (cosmic) and a 
possible personal (conscious) evolution-change. The existence of mechanical 
evolution-change is different from the existence of conscious 
evolution-change.

[Jos]

My disagreement comes down to who's awareness we're talking about. I like to 
refine what is meant by "awareness" such that it becomes a universal analogy 
applied to any type of "experience" including the interractions of inorganic 
compounds or objects. Now I can say everything is "aware" at least to a 
limited extent right throughout the static levels.
Using MOQ speak I would say that DQ is awareness, and SQ is like static 
memories of pattrens in this groundstuff whose relative 
complexity/derivative order can describe their position in a heirarchy.


[Joe] I do not see DQ as awareness. I see DQ as change within a level of 
law.

[Jos]

>From this perspective awareness absolutely comes before reality, as 
>"awareness" is the same as the the essentialists essence and the static 
>patterns are equivolent to the "reality" that forms in the 1st split from 
>essence into existence/non existence.
With awareness being proprietry to the objects themselves I am allowing them 
to self actualise rather than waiting for the human to come along and 
mercifully build them into his/her solipsist nightmare/fantasy. Generally 
folks like to imply that I'm confering agency upon objects and animals along 
with this awareness which I'm not, (necessarily).
The opposing view seems to be that restrictively "man's" awareness 
actualises reality out of essence but I wont attempt to sum up how this is 
expected to work as I know I wont do it justice.

Jos


[Joe] I can not follow what you are saying. I do not experience the 
absolute.

Joe
>
> In proposing this I realize I am confronting Ham and Micah's
> description
> that there can be no division of existence since awareness is
> prior to
> reality. I would suggest that Essence is also hierarchical
> and evolution is
> a true description in metaphysics. I am incapable of experiencing an
> absolute.