[Arlo]:
Okay. But this simply restates "[consciousness] exists". What I am asking
is "where does it come from?" You say
repeatedly that you "don't care" (my words), but you obviously do if you
dismiss social theories outright. So this "immanent core", was it present
in the primates from which we descend? ...If not, then what accounts for
its appearance in the evolutionary time-line? What?
If not social participation, and not genetics, then what?
Arlo you are not only asking the question, you are "begging the question" in
the logical sense.
My answer is that consciousness comes from "on high", from the Source, the
Creator, Essence. But you're not satisfied with my answer. You want me to
say that consciousness is either a genetically-formed component of the
central nervous system or a socially-formed concept of self-identity. You
want me to date its emergence as an evolved organ and localize it
anatomically.
Throughout this discussion I have stressed the point that conscious
awareness is not an 'existent' -- not an object of nature nor a product of
social culture. I've stated that, because it is not a "thing",
consciousness can't be localized, quantified, or observed. Rather, it is
the individuated (finite) locus of Absolute Sensibility, which is a negated
attribute of Essence. Consciousness can only participate in existence
through the objectivization of value. This actualizes Being, starting with
the physiological organism (with which it is identified) and continuing with
an apprehension of external reality intellectualized through experience.
This is my epistemological thesis. It is NOT an anthropological conclusion
or a sociological paradigm of the kind that you seem to demand. Apparently,
you are unable to comprehend subjectivity as anything but a subset of
objectivity. You are an intelligent, knowledgeable, self-seeking person
like all of us; yet you refuse to acknowledge that your conscious awareness
is "the real" Arlo Bensinger. Instead you imagine yourself as a social
appendage that somehow resulted from a complex integration of inorganic and
organic matter in the course of evolution.
Considering the narrow perspective of your worldview, it's a wonder to me
that can understand Pirsig's Quality heirarchy, much less Ham's
Essentialism.
I'm sorry you can't accept my explanation, Arlo, although it doesn't
surprise me, based on our previous correspondence.
Best wishes,
Ham
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/
