[MD] Being-Aware

[Ham Priday]

 Marsha --

I gave you a definition of "experience" to consider for dialectic purposes, 
and you respond with a statement of what experience DOES: "Experience 
creates reality."

I answered your question as to what my problem is with "the totality of the 
cognitions
given by perception; all that is perceived, understood, and remembered" as a 
definition for experience....
> The "problem" is one of communication and understanding.
> The distinction I'm trying to draw here is between descriptive prose and 
> dialectic principles.

Clearly experience is a hollow concept without content.  Only when there is 
something perceivable can we have experience of it.  That "something" must 
be the object of experience.  I said before that "we know that being exists 
only because we are aware of it."  Being in existence takes the form of a 
sensible (cognizant, knowing) agent having awareness of an other.  I didn't 
want to get descriptive here because it defeats the purpose of this 
fundamental approach.  But, technically, awareness is "sensibility" which 
infers both a sentient subject and an object.

Being-aware is a dichotomy in that being does not exist without awareness. 
Therefore, awareness does not "create" existence.  What you call 
"experience" is the resultant product of being-aware.   It's the "knowing 
self-aware-of otherness".  The essence of this otherness, its form and 
properties, is "experiential", but that is a complex process involving 
intellection, identification, conceptualization, and valuation, all of which 
belong to an epistemology that is beyond the scope of my present definition.

For the sake of clarity and understanding, I prefer to stay with the 
fundamentals at this juncture.  Being-aware is the simplest definition I can 
offer for experience.  I'm not discussing creation or epistemology here; I 
only proceed if we can agree that being-aware defines experience. 
Otherwise, please cite your objections to this fundamental definition.

Regards,
Ham