[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

Wed Mar 7 02:01:53 PST 2007

Ham!

Your still doing it! Last quote from "jos" was Joe's!

(I'll reply properly shortly)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 07 March 2007 07:57
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk