[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ham]
The fact is that Absolute Essence is incable of description, since all
description applies to relations and attributes of finite existents, and
Essence is not an existent.

[Arlo]
In other words, its just all fingers pointing at the moon. If this is what you
are saying, that all metaphysical systems are "metaphors" and must be
understood as such, we have no argument on that.

[Ham]
Certainly I am not opposed to speculation: it is the method of philosophers,
and it goes on here constantly.

[Arlo]
My issue regarding those two questions (what changed? how does it evolve?) is
that you find it quite easy to (strongly) speculate about what is NOT the
answer, but when pressed for you think IS you duck behind "that's impossible
for anyone to say". 

Thing is, when you voice speculation about what is NOT the case, you are in
fact voicing speculation about what IS. 

Now, you also claim to have answered my questions (and if I don't see it, the
problem MUST be on my end?) So let's start with my first, and see what text you
wrote that can answer them...

1.) You've claimed that at some point in deep history there existed primates
that did NOT have consciousness. Then at some point (like today) there are
primates (us) that DO have consciousness. When I asked "what changed?" you
clearly said that the change was NOT biological, could not be attributed to so
genetic mutation, NOR was it social, could not be attributed to the appearance
of social symbolic mediation. Okay, I ask, then WHAT changed?

[Ham]
Thus, your question "what changed?" must be answered in terms of evolution and
process, which is the biological or genetic answer.

[Arlo]
Are you revising your position here? Are you now saying that the appearance of
consciousness coincides with a particular genetic mutation? I want you to be
clear on this, is consciousness a biological-genetic trait? Like hair color, or
walking upright, or opposable thumbs?

2.) You have said that "consciousness evolves" over historic time, from the
first appearance of consciousness in history to modern time, it has evolved. I
had aksed, how? What is the mechanism or process by which consciousness
evolves? You had said it is NOT biological processes, the same genetic-dna
process, driven by biological reproduction and underscored by mutation and
adaption. You had said it is also NOT social, that the growing collective
consciousness or cultural milieu that subsequent generations are born into is
not the means by which subsequent generations hold evolved consciousness over
their parents. Fine I said, so HOW?

[Ham]
This means that creation is not an act that takes place in time and proceeds
from alpha to omega.  Rather, it is the actualized "modality" of Essence..

[Arlo]
Not clear,  but you seem to be confirming my speculation that your view is that
each subsequent generation is given a "new and updated" evolved consciousness
by Essence. Since Essence does not evolve, this leaves us open for speculation
on why this unevolving, immutable source doles out improved consciousnesses to
each subsequent human generation. We can come back to that.

I also asked, did the "plan for man" precede man's existence.

[Ham]
Absolute potentiality has no "need" for man or plans.  The free agent
(being-aware) is a 'parts-and-parcel' attribute of its perfection.  In that
sense, all creation is "special".

[Arlo]
So you are saying that man was not "planned", was not pre-conceived of and no
intent-of-order was followed to produce "man" in the cosmos? This seems to fly
in the face of you "Essence created man so that we could perceive its
magnificence", which most certainly does imply a carefully implemented plan. 

[Ham]
Your phrase "the narcissim of a need-to-be-loved Essigod" reveals your contempt
for the concept of a primary source.

[Arlo]
No, it reveals my contempt for anyone who would would tell me that the primary
source "needed to be loved", again a concept you imply defense for here. 

[Ham]
The  point I was making to Platt is that, while we are all value-sensible
creatures, we are free to conclude that existence comes from nothing, or that
it is the differentiated mode of an uncreated source.  As a free agent of
value, that choice is yours to make.

[Arlo]
But one choice is right and the other wrong. This reminds me of the "free
choice" topic within Christianity. Yes, you are freely able to deny God, but
woe and eternal damnation are yours if you do.

Now, if we back up to the metaphor idea, and say that the opposing answers
"existence comes from nothing" and "it comes from an undifferentiated source"
are both EQUALLY correct in that the value of their answer is determined by
whatever works for the individual, then we may have some agreement. But given
your ongoing crusade against "nihilism", I don't think you say that the choice
"existence comes from nothing" is equally correct with the alternative(s).

[Ham]
However, I cannot assume responsiblity for what is incomprehensible or
philosophically unacceptable to you.

[Arlo]
Well, you've already established the fact that Arlo is stupid. Me wonder how me
made it all the way to the end before brain exploded. But no worries, if your
answer is really there and Arlo is just too stupid to see it, I am sure other
will come to your defense and show me the light.