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

[X Acto]

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.
Ham:
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.

Ron:
Correction cognizance is reality. So analyzing cognizance is analyzing reality.

Ham continues his rant:
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?

Ron:
Clearer? that you still imply objective reality is valid even though your
ontology denies it?

sure, it's clear.