[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1

[Ham Priday]

Ron --



I'll cut to the chase.  You said:

> I saw contradiction in that you describe percieved phenomena
> as having no relation to cognizant choice, then say all perception
> is created by cognizant awareness, so in a way, all phenomena,
> chance or choice, is an interpretation of a cognizant awareness,
> therefore "chance" certainly is cognizant.
>
> But there certainly seems to be types of cognizant awareness,
> the cognizance of experience and the cognizance of understanding.
> It could be argued they are one in the same as it relates to the
> point I'm trying to make about percieved phenomena.

EVERYTHING is cognizant in the sense that it is contained in the conscious 
experience of cognitive individuals.  But this does not mean that the 
phenomena themselves possess consciousness. Analyzing    cognizance is a 
problem for you folks because you don't acknowledge the subjective mind and 
instead ascribe cognizance and intellect to some non-existent extracorporeal 
level.

To understand my epistemology (which is the traditional concept), you must 
accept the fact that awareness, experience, apprehension, intellection, and 
conceptualization are all functions of a process that takes place in the 
individual (subjective) mind.  Any other paradigm for consciousness will 
only confuse the issue and make this concept incomprehensible.  What we call 
"objects" are mental images that we construct from our (differentiated) 
experience of Value.  Consciousness is proprietary to the individual human 
being, as is our existential reality.  The precepts we hold -- evolution, 
finitude, relativity, causality, chance and probability -- are 
intellectualized from experience.

So, yes, "the cognizance of experience and cognizance of understanding are 
one and the same" subjective awareness.

Does this make it any clearer, Ron?

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Ham had said:
A tossed coin has the "choice" of landing heads or tails, but it isn't 
conscious of this choice. Living cells ingest and exude foreign matter to 
survive and undergo mitosis according to the laws of genetics, not by 
choice. One cannot assume consciousness in single-cell organisms or plants 
simply from the manifestation of change, even if such changes serve a useful 
purpose.

Then he turns on a dime:
This is not to say that the processes of nature are not purposeful or 
intelligently designed, but only that their "purpose" and "design" is a 
valuistic precept of our intellect. This has to be the case if, as I 
maintain, experience creates the universe.

> I have to ask, which is it? first you say choice isn't cognizant then you 
> do.

I don't see the contradiction in my statements, unless you are questioning 
my use of the word "choice" for the rolling of dice or flipping coins. 
(Okay, that's a euphemism for non-conscious behavior.)
"Choices" as they apply to the behavior of inanimate objects relate to 
"chance", of course, and are determined by the laws of probability.

The "choice" (or likelihood) of a biological cell to divide or retreat (for 
survival) is programmed into it genetically. Instinct, which predisposes 
animals to certain kinds of behavior is also a genetic control mechanism, 
although animals possess rudimentary awareness and may exibit individual 
preferences for food or comfort.

"Free choice" is different, however, in that it is unique to human beings 
and always conscious. It allows actions that often are opposed to biological 
instinct or the laws of survival. And it affords man the power to change or 
create his environment anew and establish laws of interrelational conduct 
which are conducive to civilization.

So, where's the contradiction, Ron?

Ron:
I saw contradiction in that you describe percieved phenomena as having no 
relation to
cognizant choice
then say all perception is created by cognizant awareness, so in a way, all 
phenomena
chance or choice, is an interpretation of a cognizant awareness, therefore 
"chance"
certainly is cognizant.

But there certainly seems to be types of cognizant awareness, the cognizance 
of
experience and the cognizance of understanding. It could be argued they are 
one
in the same as it relates to the point I'm trying to make about percieved 
phenomena.