[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

On 8/14/09 9:39 PM, "markhsmit" wrote to Platt:

> I think I would tend to agree with you that Consciousness
> is the Ground of being, without getting into semantics
> about what that means. This brings to my mind the "Nature
> of the Ground", a chapter in Aldous Huxley's book " The
> Perennial Philosophy" (always a joy to read).  In this
> treatment of such a Ground, Huxley describes it as
> "eternally complete consciousness". What is interesting
> is that many writers which Huxley cites, compare this to
> God (whatever that word may mean to them).  Eckhart
> (the real one) describes this as the "Divine Ground".
> If one is to strip away all the dogmatic and controlling
> parts of a man-made God, it could be that we are left
> with Consciousness.
>
> Where I get stuck is where does personal consciousness
> come in?   At some point, it seems to me that this
> Consciousness gets divided up. This may be called an
> illusion by some, but it's one hell of an illusion!

It's where we all get stuck, Will.  You've put your finger on the pivotal 
problem in philosophy.

Actually, Platt didn't say that Consciousness is the ground of being; I did. 
But I later qualified this definition by adding "...to the extent that 
value-sensibility is the ground of being-aware."  I wasn't suggesting that 
Consciousness equates to God or "the Divine Ground" of Eckhart but, rather, 
that it's the ground of Existence.  For me, "being" and "existing" are the 
same.  Essence (or God) is that which transcends being and existence.

As to your quandary concerning the alleged "illusion" of individuated 
Consciousness, you may accept either Huxley's theory of an "eternally 
complete consciousness" (also posited by Merrill-Wolff and Donald Hoffman), 
or the notion that subjectivity is the only reality.  My paradigm is a 
hybrid these two concepts.  I believe that proprietary consciousness is a 
finite derivative of Sensibility which, in Essence, is indistinguishable 
from Awareness (consciousness) or Value.  So that, whereas subjects and 
objects are the "realities" of experiential existence, such differentiated 
entities are not properties or attributes of the Source.  Since an absolute 
Essence can have no "other", all otherness may be considered illusionary.

When we ask "Where does otherness come from?" we are really asking "What is 
the origin of Difference?"  My answer to this is that difference is what 
separates existents from each other.  Existential beingness is a relational 
system differentiated by nothingness.  But nothingness is antithetical to 
Essence, which is "all that is" and "nothing that is not."  This leads me to 
believe that the Source must be "negational" in essence, which is to say, 
Essence negates nothingness (eternally and constantly), and subjective 
awareness is the differentiated product of this negation.  The subjective 
self has no being of its own.  It subsists entirely on its sensibility of 
Value, from which all beingness is actualized (objectivized), including its 
self-identified organism.

The paradigm for this ontology is that the Self (proprietary 
"value-sensibility") is the free or autonomous "agent" of existence whose 
valuistic experience of differentiated reality is a finite perspective of 
the Absolute Source.

I know that's a lot of words, Will, and a clearer explanation may be 
possible.  However, I hope my train of thought will shed some light on your 
enigma, even if it raises additional questions in the process.

Anyway, thanks for providing another opportunity to express my views.

Essentially yours,
Ham