[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

[Arlo]:
> Okay. But this simply restates "[consciousness] exists". What I am asking 
> is "where does it come from?" You say
> repeatedly that you "don't care" (my words), but you obviously do if you 
> dismiss social theories outright. So this "immanent core", was it present 
> in the primates from which we descend? ...If not, then what accounts for 
> its appearance in the evolutionary time-line? What?
> If not social participation, and not genetics, then what?

Arlo you are not only asking the question, you are "begging the question" in 
the logical sense.

My answer is that consciousness comes from "on high", from the Source, the 
Creator, Essence.  But you're not satisfied with my answer.  You want me to 
say that consciousness is either a genetically-formed component of the 
central nervous system or a socially-formed concept of self-identity.  You 
want me to date its emergence as an evolved organ and localize it 
anatomically.

Throughout this discussion I have stressed the point that conscious 
awareness is not an 'existent' -- not an object of nature nor a product of 
social culture.  I've stated that, because it is not a "thing", 
consciousness can't be localized, quantified, or observed.  Rather, it is 
the individuated (finite) locus of Absolute Sensibility, which is a negated 
attribute of Essence.  Consciousness can only participate in existence 
through the objectivization of value.  This actualizes Being, starting with 
the physiological organism (with which it is identified) and continuing with 
an apprehension of  external reality intellectualized through experience.

This is my epistemological thesis.  It is NOT an anthropological conclusion 
or a sociological paradigm of the kind that you seem to demand.  Apparently, 
you are unable to comprehend subjectivity as anything but a subset of 
objectivity.  You are an intelligent, knowledgeable, self-seeking person 
like all of us; yet you refuse to acknowledge that your conscious awareness 
is "the real" Arlo Bensinger.  Instead you imagine yourself as a social 
appendage that somehow resulted from a complex integration of inorganic and 
organic matter in the course of evolution.

Considering the narrow perspective of your worldview, it's a wonder to me 
that can understand Pirsig's Quality heirarchy, much less Ham's 
Essentialism.

I'm sorry you can't accept my explanation, Arlo, although it doesn't 
surprise me, based on our previous correspondence.

Best wishes,
Ham