[MD] is-ness

[Ham Priday]

 [Arlo]:
> OK. Then what IS the mechanism by which consciousness evolves over
> historic time? How did the consciousness of man in 2008 become greater
> than man in 10,000BC? Are you suggesting that "new and better models"
> were handed out by God each generation?  I can answer this. You claim
> my answer is wrong. So give me the right answer. Ain't physiology.
> Ain't socialization. So what IS the mechanism by which consciousness 
> evolves?

Mechanisms like evolution are human constructs based on the intellectual 
precept of cause-and-effect.  You're asking me to explain Creation as a 
"mechanism" constituted of things and events in process, which it is not. 
You want me to me to turn a metaphysical ontology into a scientific theory, 
which would be a total misrepresentation of my concept. Not even Pirsig's 
facility with allegories and poetic phrases can perform such a feat.

Arlo, the topic of this thread is "is-ness".  I introduced the term from a 
modern translation of Eckhart's German word "istigheit".  Roughly it means 
"that which is" as opposed to "that which exists."  It's a good place to 
start.  How would you define it?  Let me throw out a few short axioms that 
may trigger your conceptual faculties.

'What is' is absolutely.  'What is' is not actuality but the power to 
actuate.  Absolute means unconditional (not subject to the limitations of 
finitude).  Is-ness is absolute potentiality.  The essence of a thing is its 
capacity to exist, as opposed to its necessity to exist.  Finite things 
(existents) do not have this capacity; they cannot bring themselves into 
being.  Nothing in existence is infinite or absolute.  Therefore, Essence is 
not an existent.  It does not exist in space and time, is non-relational, 
uncreated, and has no beginning or end.

Now, nihilists claim that all that is left from these axioms is nothingness. 
Perhaps you are among them.  If so, you will take my statement "nothing in 
existence is infinite or absolute" to mean that everything reduces to 
nothingness.  You'll believe that something can come from nothing, which of 
course violates the 'ex nihilo' principle.  This is unacceptable to an 
essentialist for whom the alternative view is the only sensible one: 
Existence depends on an uncreated primary source.

You ask: What changes?  Existence changes, nature evolves.  But existence 
also depends on awareness, which means that awareness is primary to (the 
experience of ) being.  If this seems illogical to you, consider what Donald 
Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UCLA, has stated in his book "Visual 
Intelligence":

"I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. 
Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the 
universe, but have always been, from the beginning, among the humbler 
contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.  The world 
of our daily experience - the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, 
with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds - is a 
species-specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose 
essential character is conscious.  ...If this be right, if consciousness is 
fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of 
effort by the most brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory of 
consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter and energy or 
fields could be, or cause, conscious experience."

I'm a phenomenalist, but I don't believe that Consciousness is the 
fundamental source.  I believe it's derived (reduced) from the absolute 
sensibility of Essence.  Nonetheless, Hoffman's worldview is an 
understandable essentialistic concept which postmodern philosophers could 
well incorporate in their theories.

> The rest of what you say is nice rhetoric, but it answers neither of my
> questions. And by damned if it does, I'd love someone else to jump in
> and tell me how. So, answers next time?
>
> Try this...
>
> The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is....

...the individuation of 'being-aware' from the Sensibility/Otherness 
dichotomy, as I have already described from a non-mechanistic viewpoint.

> What changed between early primates without consciousness
> and humans with consciousness is...

...the development of consciousness.  (Again, physiological changes are not 
my field.  If you want to research evolutionary changes in primates, consult 
the science textbooks.)

I don't think it's possible to re-invent Essentialism as a mechanistic 
theory.  Maybe someone else can present it in a form you can comprehend.

--Ham