Craig --
[Extracting from Ham's complaint about Arlo]:
consciousness itself is not an 'existent'...
[denying] the possibility of a reality that
transcends finite existence...makes it impossible to
explain anything in metaphysical terms.
Please note that in the complete statement I said:
"Only existents are real for [Arlo], so he denies the subjective self and
the
possibility of a reality that transcends finite existence. Since that makes
it impossible to explain anything [to Arlo] in metaphysical terms, he
accuses me of
refusing to define awareness and Essence as processes in time."
Ham,
"Metaphysics is..."that part of philosophy which
deals with the nature and structure of reality."
(RMP. "Lila" p. 71)
In your metaphysics there is "the possibility
of a reality that transcends finite existence". But this
possibility need not be part of every metaphysics.
(To claim it is, is to beg the question.)
1) Consciousness is not an 'existent'
2) Whatever is not an 'existent' can only be explained
by a reality that transcends finite existence
3) :. Consciousness can only be explained
by a reality that transcends finite existence.
But what is your support for 1) other than 3)?
(Which would be circular.)
An existent is something that is empirically identifiable by its properties
or attributes. Consciousness cannot be quantified, localized or objectively
experienced. Its origin is explainable only by a transcendent reality,
whereas existents can be explained in terms of cause-and-effect. Therefore,
consciousness is not an existent.
--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/
