[MD] Being-Aware

[MarshaV]

At 01:37 PM 9/25/2008, you wrote:

>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."

No, Ham.   Experience is reality, it creates subject and object.



>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.

There are six senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste and 
mind.  Perceptual awareness may be of a mental pattern.  These six 
senses of perception seem to cover everything.


>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.

You've offered the wrong definition.  For me and the sake of clarity, 
the fundamentals are experience is reality, and it is experience that 
creates subject and object.

Marsha




.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.