On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:18:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>> Cool. I actually would have agreed with you and a lot of people here at 
>> different times in my life. It's only been lately in the last five years or 
>> so that I have put together this other way of understanding everything. It 
>> gets lost in the debating, because I feel like I have to make my points 
>> about what is different or new about how I see things, but I do understand 
>> that other ways of looking at it make a lot of sense too - so much so that 
>> I suppose I am drawn only to digging into the weak spots to try to  get 
>> others to see the secret exit that I think I've found...
> Ok, this sounds interesting and I'd like to know more. I've been away from 
> the mailing list in the last few years, so maybe you've talked about it 
> before. Would you tell me about that secret exit?

The secret exit is to reverse the assumption that consciousness occurs from 
functions or substances. Even though our human consciousness depends on a 
living human body (as far as we know for sure), that may be because of the 
degree of elaboration required to develop a human quality of experience, 
not because the fundamental capacity to perceive and participate depends on 
anything at all.

Being inside of a human experience means being inside of an animal 
experience, an organism's experience, a cellular and molecular level 
experience. The alternative means picking an arbitrary level at which total 
lack of awareness suddenly changes into perception and participation for no 
conceivable reason. Instead of hanging on to the hope of finding such a 
level or gate, the secret is to see that there are many levels and gates 
but that they are qualitative, with each richer integration of qualia 
reframing the levels left behind in a particular way, and that way (another 
key) is to reduce it from a personal, animistic temporal flow of 1p meaning 
and significant preference  to impersonal, mechanistic spatial bodies ruled 
by cause-effect and chance/probability. 1p and 3p are relativistic, but 
what joins them is the capacity to discern the difference. 

Rather than sense i/o being a function or logic take for granted, flip it 
over so that logic is the 3p shadow of sense. The 3p view is a frozen 
snapshot of countless 1p views as seen from the outside, and the qualities 
of the 3p view depend entirely on the nature of the 1p 
perceiver-partcipant. Sense is semiotic. Its qualitative layers are 
partitioned by habit and interpretive inertia, just as an ambiguous image 
looks different depending on how you personally direct your perception, or 
how a book that you read when you are 12 years old can have different 
meanings at 18 or 35. The meaning isn't just 'out there', it's literally, 
physically "in here". If this is true, then the entire physical universe 
doubles in size, or really is squared as every exterior surface is a 3p 
representation of an entire history of 1p experience. Each acorn is a 
potential for oak tree forest, an encyclopedia of evolution and cosmology, 
so that the acorn is just a semiotic placeholder which is scaled and 
iconicized appropriately as a consequence of the relation of our human 
quality awareness and that of the evolutionary-historical-possible future 
contexts which we share with it (or the whole ensemble of experiences in 
which 'we' are both embedded as strands of the story of the universe rather 
than just human body and acorn body or cells and cells etc).

To understand the common thread for all of it, always go back to the 
juxtaposition of 1p vs 3p, not *that* there is a difference, but the 
qualities of *what* those differences are - the sense of the juxtaposition. 


That's were I get sense and motive or perception and participation. The 
symmetry is more primitive than either matter or mind, so that it isn't one 
which builds a bridge to the other but sense which divides itself on one 
level while retaining unity on another, creating not just dualism but a 
continuum of monism, dualism, dialectic, trichotomy, syzygy, etc. Many 
levels and perspectives on sense within sense.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to