To Ham (and whomever is bored enough)-
Apparently you are my chosen target. How you people possibly keep up with each
other is beyond me, but also mostly irrelevant.
Anyhow, thanks for the response.
[Ham]
>I
am proposing that we come to an agreement as to a fundamental
definition for existence. Existence has variously been conceived in
this forum as material, >illusionary, phenomenal, and qualitative.
Some believe it to be the primary reality, some view it as derived from
an uncreated source, while others consider it >a hegemony or
hierarchy of intellectual levels. I submit that we can't construct a
cosmology of existence - philosophical or metaphysical unless we agree
on >what it is.
Excellent. And that helps. A bit. But, by saying that
existence is being-aware, are you saying that existence is all of those
things (illusionary, material, ect) ...or none of them, or only some?
Or does your statement have any direct bearing on that debate at all?
[Ham again]
>By
keeping our assertions and propositions on a fundamental level (e.g.,
making them non-descriptive) we can avoid misconception of the ideas
presented as >well as misunderstanding of the overall concept.
Not
sure what you mean by non-descriptive, possibly the same thing as I
mean by "abstract." However, I find that providing descriptions and
examples of a concept makes it wholly more comprehensible, and more
visual, enabling the reader to see the importance of the assertion.
Often, too, by getting too fundamental (such as trying to determine
when exactly a fetus attains human status and rights) we lose sight of
the multitude of other factors that influence whether, for example,
abortion is a woman's right. That was my point, but of course its also
true that without acknowledging differences in beliefs about human
rights, you can get very flustered trying to convince someone that
abortion is wrong, when in fact the difference lies in your fundamental
beliefs about whether the unborn child is more or less important than
the needs of its mother and other people involved in the decision.
But
perhaps that is not what you were trying to convey. Now to go back to
your uh... cosmology? Eh, I shouldn't use words I don't know the
definition of.
[Craig]
{Ham, reconstructed}
>> 1) we know that being exists only because we are aware of it
>> 2) whatever knows that being exists only because it is aware of it, is
>> fundamentally a being-aware.
>> 3) therefore each cognizant individual is fundamentally a being-aware.
>You have provided no support for 2)
Well, it seems I cannot find your response to this... meh. So I'm going to try
to rephrase this in words that make more sense to me.
On a tangent:
[ML]
>... often means "translating" or interpreting through what they are more
>accustomed to. It isn't easy. Training wheels have to come off at some point,
>though.
We
constantly must interpret what people say. That doesn't mean that by
asking for clarification we're necessarily using crutches though; there
is always a simpler way to say something. One of my teachers once said,
"if you can't explain something as so a third grader could understand
it, you don't fully understand it," and the rest of my teachers are
constantly instructing us to write essays as if we were describing it
to one of our clueless relatives or friends. Of course that would take more time
and effort than is reasonable and there is always some responsibility on
behalf of the reader to struggle through.
But come on, give a girl a
break.
Back to the topic, here is my rewording:
1) we know that being exists only because we are aware of it
2) knowing that we exist only because we are aware of it proves that we are
both aware and a being
Which essentially, is something you either believe or don't.
Except, I get the feeling that you're trying to argue that you can't
*not* believe it.
After all, what is the alternate explanation? Is there another way to "become"
without awareness?
It seems you say no.
[Ham, assorted quotes]
>All creatures distinguish themselves from otherness, whether they have
>self-awareness or an understanding of reality or not.
>All experienced entities are objective "beings" to the subject, whether they
>are human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.
>Everything that exists is aware to the SUBJECT who experiences it.
There is a little ambiguity in the "it" of the last quote, so I am
going to assume that you mean "the awareness." I'll change it to
"everything is being-aware to the subject that experiences its
awareness."
So basically, I can be certain I am being-aware because I experience my own
awareness.
HOWEVER, I cannot be certain that you either exist or are aware because I
cannot experience your awareness.
Again, is a rock "being-aware?" Does a rock have a sense of "otherness?"
If you think no, then what *is* a rock, to someone like you or me?
If something is being-aware only to that which has its unique awareness, what
is that thing to "other" awarenesses?
If you say that a rock, according to you or me, is not a being-aware
yet nonetheless exists, you open up all kinds of doors, while
contradicting yourself.
But if you say that a rock *is* a being-aware, even from my
perspective, I must ask, as mildly as possible, how it manages such a
feat without having a single organic component, and how come I am not
implicitly aware of its awareness?
Genuinely (though I have no relation to the Lord-person),
Jean
_________________________________________________________________
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
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/
