[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/18/09 12:27 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

[Ham]
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.
 
[Joe]
> 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.
 
[Ham]
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?
 
Hi Ham and all,

[Joe]
Imho Existence is DQ at the social level.  I accept evolution!  I want to
explore the metaphysical system for viewing reality DQ/SQ. I do not accept
³Essence² as the primary source.  I accept Quality!  I accept evolution!

[Joe]
At the inorganic, and organic levels existence is not separate from the
being of those levels. At the social level the DQ consciousness of existence
manifests.  

[Joe]
Consciousness, the DQ of the social order, accepts a further DQ order in
existence to the intellectual level, revealing the possibility for undefined
conscious evolution beyond the intellectual level.

[Joe]
Essence, as primary source, is a matter of undefined Faith not within the
purview of a metaphysical discussion.

[Joe]
The conception of Essence is a made up word abstracted from the infinitive
and participle esse ens of an irregular verb meaning ³to be² to give
credence to the argument for a powerful God.  Witness the abstraction
occurring from the need for an omnipotent leader at the social level as Bo
has so eloquently described in regard to the madness of the Taliban in their
appeal to Allah for their brutality.

All imho.

Joe
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/