[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

On 8/17/09, 3:09 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:


> Hi Ham and all,
>
> I have not the slightest idea how you put words together.
> "Being" for me is a participle form of  "I am".  "Existing" is the
> participle form of "I exist".  I have always thought that "being"
> and "existing" were different concepts from general to particular.
> There is much more to my being than existing.  I accept that
> Consciousness is the level of being proper to society.  My
> visions and dreams are individual, outside of society.  I accept
> that society is more structured than my dreams and visions.

I'm sorry my vernacular is confusing to you.  'Being' is, as you say, the 
present participle of the predicate "am" as applied to the first person 
singular.  As a nominative, however, it also means "the quality or state of 
having existence," which applies to any or all beingness.  When we speak of 
the "ground of being," it is this meaning that is usually inferred.  And 
since what exists has being, and vice-versa, I view these two terms as 
synonomous.

You say there is more to your being than existing.  Is this because you 
ascribe experience to being and not to existing?  I should think the 
cumulative life experience of any individual is descriptive of his/her 
existence.  Also, you confuse me with the statement: "Consciousness is the 
level of being proper to society."  Consciousness is the cognitive awareness 
of an individual. Unless "proper" adds some "collective" significance to 
this assertion, I don't see how consciousness per se has anything to do with 
society.

> Equating "Essence" with God, makes communication impossible
> as there is no definition for a word without "Essence".  I AM THAT
> I AM does not seem to be an essential definition.  I do not accept
> Pantheism.  I am an individual responsible to myself, society, truth,
> and goodness.

As the primary source, Essence is ultimately accountable for definitions, 
words, the individuals who invent them, their consciousness awareness, and 
the universe itself.  How does this make communication impossible?

"I am that I am" is recorded in scripture as God's response when Moses asked 
for his name.  I disagree that this is "not an essential definition".  In 
fact, it expresses the very idea of a "primary source" by implying that God 
is unique in its self-sufficiency.  Eckhart, an agnostic, characterized the 
'Divine One' by the Germanic equivalent of 'IS-ness'.  The German theologian 
Cusanus theorized God as the "not-other".  The Persian prophet Zoroaster 
founded a religion based on a divinity described as "the One uncreated 
Creator."

All of these euphemisms are insightful, but I don't believe the uncreated 
source is describable in human terms.  I prefer the term 'Essence' because 
it connotes unconditional primacy and potentiality without invoking any kind 
of theism.

By the way, I respect your personal credo as you've expressed it.  The MoQ 
is sadly lacking such an individualistic perspective.

Thanks, Joe.

--Ham