I am Self-Aware - The Collision of Fact and Principle?
Georges Metanomski wrote:
>We postulate with Einstein and Popper the Principle of Relativity,
>which underlies epistemology and science since Descartes:
>**All elements of the human Universe are relative, excepting
>Awareness, its utmost absolute foundation.**
I've read the post in which you deny postulating a transcendent
Awareness; but, I must say that your language invites just such an
interpretation; particularly, when you capitalize 'Awareness' and speak
about 'the' human Universe. if there is only one human Universe, how
could it be founded by an individual awareness brought forth within that
universe --- a universe into which I am myself thrown, as it were?
on the other hand, if we are speaking about the everyday awareness that
I have, that you have, that any of us has, what is the significance (if
any) of the capitalization? is there any difference in sense or meaning
between 'awareness' and 'Awareness'? in any case, in what sense is
awareness (or Awareness) the foundation of 'the human Universe'?
>Corollary 1: Meaningful assertions express relative elements as
>related to others. Thus, nothing can be asserted about Awareness.
>Corollary 2: Awareness, as the utmost foundation, has no superclass
>and cannot be intensionally defined. Its extensional definition
>encompasses all elements of the Universe.
even leaving aside your assertion of the paradoxical claim "that nothing
can be asserted about Awareness", in just these few paragraphs, you've
asserted the following about Awareness:
that it is the absolute foundation of all else; and, that it has made
you aware of this.
that it has no superclass.
that it can not be intensionally defined; that it can be extensionally
defined; and, that its extensional definition encompasess 'all elements
of the Universe'.
that one may give hints about it.
>Example: Saying "I am aware" posits some element "I" having the
>property "awareness", which contradicts our Principle, as Awareness
>founds and precedes all other elements, including "I". "I" is founded
>in Awareness and not the other way round.
by asserting or reporting 'I am self-aware', the referent of 'I' reports
its experience of self-awareness; but, it is not at all clear to me how
this fact would contradict your Principle. however, it is clear that, if
there is a contradiction between fact and Principle, the fact alone
survives the collision.
>One cannot assert anything about Awareness; one can only hint it
>intuitively. Some people get the hint and some not.
>BTW, whatever "Awareness" may hint, "Self-Awareness" is a tautology.
only a propositional formula can be a tautology. 'I am self-aware' is
the report of an experiential fact. are you claiming that 'I am
self-aware' is a propositional formula; or, are you using 'tautology' in
some other sense?
Joe
--
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. --- H-N Castaneda
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@^@
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
