[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos and Joe --

I've just replied to David and David, and now this.  Two name pairings in
one night -- how improbable is that?


> On Tuesday 06 March 2007 1:14 AM Jos writes to Joe:
>
> Hi Jos (Ham can now see the two names together)
>
> 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.

I don't understand what "experiencing the absolute" has to do with Joe's
statement.  All he's saying is that awareness comes before (the experience
of) reality.

> 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.

You would have to rephrase this in common language for me to comprehend your
argument.  What is an "individual sentient"?  What is a "mechanical
evolution-change"?  Are you talking about the conscious awareness of time?

[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....

If you don't know who's aware, you have a personal identity problem for
which I would advise psychiatric treatment.  So far as I know, awareness is
a "universal analogy" only in Pirsig's epistemology.  At least I'm not aware
of any other philosophy that doesn't recognize conscious awareness as an
attribute of the human individual.

[Jose continues]:
> 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.

Since I don't believe in psychic heirarchies, I have no comment.

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

Did you say LAW ?

 [Jos]:
> From this perspective awareness absolutely comes before
> reality, as "awareness" is the same as 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. ...

Hold on, there, fella!  You can't fuse Essentialism with the MoQ.  It won't
work because the ontologies are not compatible.  For example, awareness is
NOT the same as Essence, whatever the static patterns are supposed to be.
Also, by saying "awareness absolutely comes before reality" you've made Joe
think you mean "experiencing the absolute."  Only the absolute experiences
the absolute.  That's why I use the terms "experience", "awareness", and
"intelligence" to designate human faculties.  I reserve the word
"Sensibility" (cap S) for the absolute "awareness" of Essence.

> Generally folks like to imply that I'm conferring 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 won't
> attempt to sum up how this is expected to work as I know I
> won't do it justice.

What "agency" are you conferring on objects and animals?
Objects have neither awareness nor cognizance; animals (with brains) have
awareness with limited cognizance.  Only man has a sense of value and is a
self-determinate creature.

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

Turn the record over, Joe -- you've played that side.

[Jos]:
> 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.

I suggest that you both regard existence as your "reality", and consider the
divison of this reality as awareness separated from otherness.  That
establishes the S/O relation of the subjective self to the objective other.
Your confusion results from the fact that the MoQ would have you believe the
subject-object division is a "myth".  If you accept that view it's OK by me,
but it's not my philosophy. The Philosophy of Essence needs no heirarchy
because it acknowledges that we exist in a subject/object dichotomy that
arises by negation of the absolute source [Essence].  Evolution is simply
the finite, serialized experience of discreet events in time and space.
It's how we experience reality.

Essentially yours,
Ham