[MD] is-ness

[Ham Priday]

[Arlo]:
>  If consciousness is not "passed on" by some means,
> then how/where does it "evolve"?

Consciousness is proprietary to the self, therefore it cannot be "passed on" 
to one's progeny, as can blond hair or a club foot.  No one else can share 
my consciousness, which is why the notion that it is has a "social origin" 
is absurd.

> You adamantly claim it is not "social" in any way. So, to this I asked 
> you,
> if it is not of "social origin" (as I claim) then where in your thesis 
> does it
> derive?

Arlo, you don't like metaphysics, any more than does your illustrious 
author.  However, since my thesis is founded on metaphysical concepts, to 
answer your question I'm going to have to speak in terms that are foreign to 
you.  I'll aim for simplicity, but the first concept you must understand is 
that physical existence is not ultimate reality.  Everything in existence is 
differentiated and relational, including the self.  "Thingness" or 
"beingness" is itself an existential term, as is the precept of 
cause-and-effect.  Conversely, ultimate reality (Essence) is absolute and 
undifferentiated.  So we're not talking science here.  We're not describing 
a system that is created in time, undergoes transformations according to 
laws of energy and mass, and becomes dispersed in space.  That's the 
experiential world that I call Existence.

In my creation hypothesis, consciousness is the "sensible" aspect of Essence 
that is separated (or negated) from Essence to actualize existence.  This 
separation is the primary dichotomy (Sensibility/Otherness) that is 
intrinsic to existence.  It makes possible the "appearance of other" in a 
reality where there literally IS no other.  It also makes possible the 
"realization of Value" that is man's role in the cosmos.  Appearance 
requires a subject and object, the "apprehender" and that which is 
apprehended.  The dichotomy of existence provides the ground for appearance 
by creating "being-aware".  This, too, is a dichotomy, but one that is 
repeated an infinite number of times (as individuated being-aware).  Each 
conscious individual is a unique being-aware with its own perspective of the 
value that both negates (divides it from) and affirms (binds it to) the 
essential source.

What is observed as "process" in human experience is in reality a "reductive 
appearance" of Essence.  Existence seen from the infinitesimal locus of a 
human being is a dynamic external system in which he participates as a 
"being-in-the-world".  His physical organism provides the organic 
sensibility to construct this relational system from the value that relates 
it to Essence.  Thus, Creation is the constant mode of actualization 
(sometimes analogized as "the other side of the coin"), whereas Essence 
itself is timeless, immutable, and undivided.  That's why I don't speak of 
creation as some vague act in the past which is automatically running out 
its course, or give any special significance to the emergence date of 
consciousness in the species or in the individual.

I don't expect anyone of your existential persuasion to grasp this concept, 
which is why I've been reluctant to try to articulate it in a single post. 
But, possibly, it may help you appreciate that the answers I've offered are 
not "evasive rhetoric", but relate to a metaphysical ontogeny that has no 
existential referents.  Your understanding of "negation" and 
"being-in-the-world" would be aided by reading Hegel or Sartre, and the 
creation of "difference" is implicit in Cusa's principle of the "not other". 
(References to these philosophers are included in my on-line thesis.)

I know this won't satisfy you, Arlo, but it's the best I can do to in this 
limited space.

Essentially yours,
Ham