[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Craig --


[Extracting from Ham's complaint about Arlo]:
>> consciousness itself is not an 'existent'...
>> [denying] the possibility of a reality that
>> transcends finite existence...makes it impossible to
>> explain anything in metaphysical terms.

Please note that in the complete statement I said:
"Only existents are real for [Arlo], so he denies the subjective self and 
the
possibility of a reality that transcends finite existence.  Since that makes
it impossible to explain anything [to Arlo] in metaphysical terms, he 
accuses me of
refusing to define awareness and Essence as processes in time."

> Ham,
> "Metaphysics is..."that part of philosophy which
> deals with the nature and structure of reality."
> (RMP. "Lila" p. 71)
> In your metaphysics there is "the possibility
> of a reality that transcends finite existence".  But this
> possibility need not be part of every metaphysics.
> (To claim it is, is to beg the question.)
> 1) Consciousness is not an 'existent'
> 2) Whatever is not an 'existent' can only be explained
>     by a reality that transcends finite existence
> 3) :. Consciousness can only be explained
>     by a reality that transcends finite existence.
> But what is your support for 1) other than 3)?
> (Which would be circular.)

An existent is something that is empirically identifiable by its properties 
or attributes.  Consciousness cannot be quantified, localized or objectively 
experienced.  Its origin is explainable only by a transcendent reality, 
whereas existents can be explained in terms of cause-and-effect.  Therefore, 
consciousness is not an existent.

--Ham