Arlo --
You've just, once again, claimed my answer to
"how does it evolve" to be stupid.
If a criticism of your theory on rational grounds implies "stupidity" on
your part, I defer to the author's judgment. However, let the record show
that I did not use that word.
Since the need to justify your mechanistic ontogeny is relentless, here are
two assertions that any reasonable person - certainly any biologist - would
find illogical:
1. You explain the "change" from "primates without consciousness" to
conscious humans as...
...a level of neuro-biological complexity brought about by
DNA-driven biological evolution ...spawned the unintended
consequence of allowing shared attention and hence the
emergence of social activity.
This obtuse statement can be reduced to the proposition:
Genetic evolution increases neurological complexity sufficiently to allow
social interaction. Assuming that primates are non-conscious (which is not
supported by
zoologists), how could they "attend" to their own needs, let alone share
their attention with other creatures? Attention infers cognizant
apprehension (consciousness) which you say the primates don't have.
2. Your theory is based on a collective consciousness ("mythos") which has
always been a myth to me.
The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is.... the
collective consciousness (the "mythos"), which evolves over
time as new generations and new individuals assimilate it and
add to it and modify it.
Again, if the individual creature has no conscious awareness - and, indeed,
there is no consciousness at this juncture - what are the odds that it will
"assimilate" consciousness from the ethos?
So tell me yours.
Arlo, your persistence has won out! What follows is an abridgement of the
creation hypothesis detailed in my online thesis.
My Creation hypothesis is based in part on the Cusan 'not-other', which
suggests a negational Essence. Because Essence is absolute in potentiality
and contains no otherness, what it negates (or denies) in actuality must
also be absolute potentially There is but one possible option:
Nothingness. As the antithetical essent, only nothingness shares the
absolute and undivided status of Essence. From the existential perspective,
then, Essence is negational. Because Essence is absolute and ubiquitous,
there is no other within or beside it. The modus operandi for the creation
of an otherness is abnegation or "self-denial", rather than action or
movement. Absolute Essence is the only entity that creates by "exclusion".
The potential for actualizing the appearance of contrariety (difference) is
innate in its Oneness. So that what is perceived by the creature to be
"evolutionary process" in time and space is in reality a 'fait accompli' of
the immutable Creator - a metaphysical modality representing what Absolute
Essence itself is not; i.e., differentiated otherness.
What Essence actualizes as an "other" is its negative or nothingness
potentiality. This negation of Nothingness creates difference by
actualizing Sensibility in contradiction to Being. In humanistic terms,
negation is the denial of nothingness. Negation is not a singular event
but, rather, an inferred characteristic of Essence that is reflected in the
actualized "negate" that differentiates and defines the "beingness" of
existence from its value-sensibility.
As the being-denied negate, the individuated self is the value-sensible
agent needed to make being aware. The coupling of proprietary sensibility
and universal otherness establishes the primary relation for differentiated
existence. Insofar as the coincidence of being and awareness - each
separated by negation, yet bound by value - such a conception is
metaphysically useful, if not a logical imperative. In existence, this
dichotomy is represented (actualized) by the individuated organism with
which the proprietary self (being-aware) identifies.
Every experience added to being-aware is a move toward unifying the
self/other dichotomy. Rather than affirming the being of an object
experienced, by denying its otherness the cognizant agent affirms (relative)
value. This "double-negation" effectively cancels the first, bringing the
cycle of existence full circle. In intellectual terms, we realize the
conditional value of "the other" in the process of defining its existential
properties. Or, as a teleological principle, we affirm the Value of Essence
by negating the otherness of its being. This reciprocal exchange, perceived
as "process in space/time existence", represents what in metaphysical terms
may be described as "the negational (differential or relational) mode" of
Essence.
By negating the "otherness" of things so that they become our reality, we
appropriate their values for our selves. Insofar as value is perceived
relationally by the senses, it determines the form of the observed images
retained in our conscious memory. But Value is also our affinity for the
integrity of Essence, which means that it is essential and non-negatable.
So, by incrementally reclaiming our own displaced value from what we
experience as being, our awareness not only brings value into beingness, it
ultimately dissolves the sensibility/otherness dichotomy, restoring
otherness to its absolute [non-contradictory] identity in the Absolute
Source.
You will not accept this thesis, because you are beholden to Pirsig's
hierarchy of existence and reject a metaphysical source. But at least I
have provided a complete answer to your question, which you are free to
frame in the objectivist-mechanistic terms of anthropology at your own risk.
Hopefully, this response will bring our current exchange to a long overdue
close.
Regards,
Ham
ss_archive/
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/
