Greetings, Kieffer --
About Arlo's assertions . . . On 12/11 Arlo wrote:
Ham has said that at some point in the historical timeline, call it Point Alpha, there were primates that did NOT have consciousness. Then, at a later point, call it Point Beta, there were primates that DID have consciousness. Perhaps Ham would care to explain the process by which the consciousness of those at Point Alpha "evolved" into the greater consciousness we see at Point Beta?
You responded:
To some extent (that is with some qualification) I can agree with his statement, first being: the effect we refer to as consciousness
For the record, I never said such a thing. Arlo, who is obsessed with historical explanations, insisted that I accept an anthropological timeline of man's development. Arlo came up with the alpha and beta points, and he is the one who needs to justify Consciousness as a biological event. Quite naturally, as you seem to understand, I do not care to reduce metaphysics to the human experience of changing events in time. As you noted, "Ham could only explain this by falling back on to Darwin." And that is exactly what I told him.
The fact that man's experience of reality is sequential does not prove that consciousness or value is a product of cause-and-effect. To claim so is to dismiss the ontogeny that is implicit in Essentialism and also (I believe) in Pirsig's Quality thesis. Neither conscious awareness nor the Value it actualizes is an 'existent'. Creation is not a sequence of events chronicled by a timeline; it is the ever-present Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy from which being-aware is derived. So those who ask "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" questions are much more 'SOMist' than yours truly.
As far as teleology is concerned, only the likes of Arlo could twist it into an apologist's argument for theism:
[Arlo]:
Ham also claims we were "intended" to be here, that is man was created by a Source that wanted something to "perceive its magnificence". While such a needy-Source would do better creating therapists than adulators, it certainly demonstrates a theistic approach.
[Kieffer]:
Again, without any nit-picking, I, and I think you also, agree with this statement.
What Arlo doesn't understand is that ALL Value is our perception of the essential Source. It is finite Man who "needs" to relate to Essence, for without Essence he is literally nothing.
Thanks for showing some understanding, Kieffer, and have a Merry Christmas. Essentially yours, 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/
