[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

> You don't attribute "consciousness" to social participation, I am 
> wondering, then, where it comes from? So far, it sounded
> as if it develops from a genetic "quirk" that appeared in the
> chain of man's evolution.
>
> And where does this ability come from? This is what I am curious about. 
> Did the primitive creatures from which man descends/evolves possess this 
> unique capacity?  If not, then something, somewhere "changed" that allowed 
> man to acquire this ability. What changed?

Arlo, you and I have very different perspectives of reality, mine being 
metaphysical and yours societal.  My records show that I responded to this 
line of questioning from you at least once before.  So I see no point in 
going this round again.

As I stated previously, I have no interest in genetics or social history. 
Evolution is the experience of change or process in time, which is the mode 
of human awareness.  If you want a chronicle of evolutionary events, read a 
book on anthropology or the history of civilization.  My thesis is that 
existence is the reality of experience.  Every object or event in existence 
is intellectualized as the effect of an antecedent cause and is 
distinguished from other things by qualitative and quantitative differences. 
These are all experiential (sensory) attributes.  The phenomenal world is a 
construct of man, not fundamental reality.

What you will not accept (and why our discussion cannot be productive) is 
the idea that underlying the being-aware dichotomy is an undivided, 
unchanging source.  As agents of this source, we only sense its value.  As 
organic beings, we differentiate this value (cerebrally) into the objective 
phenomena that comprise our relational universe.  This is all spelled out in 
my thesis at www.essentialism.net., which I believe you've already reviewed. 
I even explain how the role of an  autonomous value-sensible agent completes 
or "perfects" the essential source.

You may recall my statement on 4/30 in answer to your rhetorical question, 
"So the universe did not exist before man?"

"I think Pirsig wrote somewhere that experience defines reality.  (Possibly
one of the MoQists here can locate the quote.)  If he's right, then, as
Prof. Linde said, in the absence of an observer there is no universe.  Then,
the universe begins to form as the newborn individual experiences it.  It
takes on the aspects of diversity, change, relations, causes/effects, and
structural order as the child begins to intellectualize his experience.
And--Presto!--the physical universe comes into existence.  We have all
the evidence in the world to support this concept, and nothing but
'intellectual assumptions' to the contrary."

Your response was, "I have no desire to ponder solipsism."  Since you reject 
my thesis out of hand, what more can I say?

Regards,
Ham