[MD] Consciousness

[skutvik at online.no]

Nice to meet you Kieffer

Particularly as you wrote on 20 Dec. after DMB had written 

> > I like to imagine that the whole history of the universe IS the
> > history of consciousness. I like to imagine that consciousness did
> > not emerge at some point but rather that it was always present and
> > that it has been a coconspirator since the big bang and has grown
> > simultaneously with the physical structures.

KO 
> This sounds like Ham's Essence; something not detectable, not a thing
> - could it in fact be merely your own desparate invention borne of
> your struggle to understand.

You bet it sounds like Ham, because he is like the early Phaedrus with 
Essence=Quality and then his Differentiated Essence that only has 
one stage Consciousness of  a World.. 
 
> > Seen this way, the qualitative shift from one level to the next IS a
> > shift in consciousness. The higher levels display an increased
> > complexity and capacity for freedom but this is purchased at a
> > price. When ego consciousness dominates or even excludes all other
> > sorts of consciousness, as it usually does in our time a culture, a
> > kind of dissociation or alienation occurs.

Consciousness is a "unassimiled" concept like Beauty, Intuition, 
Essence and Aesthetics (Art), out of each a MOQ-like metaphysics 
may have been constructed. In consciousness case the first axiom is  
"Consciousness=Reality", then Dynamic/Static Consciousness and the 
known static consciousness levels. This is fine but after Quality is 
chosen it's poison to start speaking about consciousness, there are 
only the various levels' perception of Quality.    

KO: 
> The individual has its place because that is the vehicle, the state of
> the art; there is no consciousness inside of it however; only a
> wonderful projection that by convention we call self consciousness.

Sounds like we agree KO, at least as I see it "the individual" as carrier 
of consciousness is intellect's invention. There were and still is 
persons at the social level with name, property and each an every 
individual qualities, but in the "man" sense that so many use it's an 
hoax. 

> Yes, it does all seem like the way you say DMB, but it does not hold
> water really as you will forever be chasing your tail and people will
> inevitably take one step further and fall in with religion and the all
> the baggage that goes along with that.

I can only say "Hark ye all"!  Do we really have a true MOQ-ist among 
us?  

Bo