[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[skutvik at online.no]

Good old Ham 

Bo before: 
> > Phew, your interpretation of my SOL (interpretation of the
> > MOQ) is frustrating, do you do it to provoke me?. Anyway,
> > the S/O distinction is the intellectual level's value (this is static
> > and thus not existence's deepest ground, which is Dynamic/Static) but as
> > real as the rest of the static levels, as real as rocks, as our bodies,
> > as our social patterns. Get it???????????????

Ham: 
> Yes, I got it long ago.  The problem with this ontology is that the ground
> of existence, which you now call "Dynamic/Static", cannot be Quality or
> some combination of dynamic and static quality.  Quality (Value) is what
> the subject perceives and is not realized (i.e., does not exist) without a
> sensible agent.  What you conclude as "real" is no more than plain old
> existence conceived in two ways: as it is experienced (by the subject) and
> as it is intellectualized (by the subject).  Eureka! ...you have NOT found
> it.

MOQ postulates that the ruling Western World View is the 
Subject/Object - aka Mind/Matter (abbreviated SOM). You postulate 
that the S/O split (or in your lingo between the Sensible Agent and its 
Awareness) is no "world view" because it is reality itself - existence's 
deepest ground. Is that right? It must be possible to smoke you out.  

So no more for now.

Bodvar