[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[X Acto]

Bodvar, if SOL is what you say it is, then convincing Ham of your arguement
should be possible from his view.

now is your time to shine


 


----- Original Message ----
From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:14:47 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Consciousness (explained?)

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




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/