On 11/18/09 9:23 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
The dynamics of consciousness are not reducible to the "on/off" logic of computer technology. You can't analyze epistemology in binary terms. What I call "awareness" and "otherness" are the primary contingencies of existence. So in your simile they would both be defined as '0's. The distinction between subjective awareness and objective otherness is self-evident and should need no explanation. It's the difference between the 'knower' and its experiential referents, i.e., you and your objective world. I'm perplexed by your assertion: "I can only conceptualize 1". You don't (can't) conceptualize awareness; it's simply your knowing, apprehending self. What you "conceptualize" is the sensory data of your experience. That valuistic concept is the "universe out there" -- your objective reality. It doesn't take a nuclear engineer to comprehend the epistemology I've outlined. The difficulty lies in relating existence to the primary source, and that requires a sound metaphysical thesis. But your questions do not address that. --Ham Hi Ham and all, We are using a different metaphysical approach to language, and we are talking past each other. I make a distinction between a ³perception² and a ³conception². Perception is undefined and Conception is defined. If I want to talk about ³awareness² I have to conceptualize ³awareness² and add elements that may or may not exist in my perception of ³awareness². We are talking past each other. I had hoped my terminology was familiar to you since the logic in mathematics had been discussed. I was struck by the words "primary contingencies of existence". Joe > > On Wednesday, 11/18/09 at 4:17 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: > >> Hi Ham and all, >> >> How are awareness/otherness conceptualized? If in experiential existence >> there is 1 in awareness and 0 in otherness change is indeterminate. If >> there is 1 in awareness and 1 in otherness what is the distinction between >> them to make them a dichotomy? How can I conceptualize a difference? >> I can only conceptualize 1 and there is no change in my awareness of >> otherness. > > The dynamics of consciousness are not reducible to the "on/off" logic of > computer technology. You can't analyze epistemology in binary terms. What > I call "awareness" and "otherness" are the primary contingencies of > existence. So in your simile they would both be defined as '0's. The > distinction between subjective awareness and objective otherness is > self-evident and should need no explanation. It's the difference between > the 'knower' and its experiential referents, i.e., you and your objective > world. > > I'm perplexed by your assertion: "I can only conceptualize 1". You don't > (can't) conceptualize awareness; it's simply your knowing, apprehending > self. What you "conceptualize" is the sensory data of your experience. > That valuistic concept is the "universe out there" -- your objective > reality. It doesn't take a nuclear engineer > to comprehend the epistemology I've outlined. The difficulty lies in > relating existence to the primary source, and that requires a sound > metaphysical thesis. But your questions do not address that. > > --Ham > > > On 11/17/09 6:56 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: >> >>> Hi Ham and all, >>> >>> In the face of undefined gravity it is not a huge leap of faith to >>> analogize the experience of a rock falling, or atoms in fixed orbits. >>> Essence on the other hand clouds the perceived reality by >>> mistakenly denying motion in reality apart from itself. Imho >>> Pirsig correctly identifies motion in the levels of evolution. >>> Evolution is a simple, brilliant explanation for levels in existence. >>> From that start it is relatively easy to comprehend the one and >>> the many. >>> >>> Essence on the other hand is tied to divinity and is totally >>> incomprehensible while resting on the shoulders of an author >>> who proposes that evolution is not a change in existence, >>> but simply independent nodules of essence. >>> >> You're right that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith -- or much >> intellect -- to imagine a falling rock or atoms in orbit having experience >> and making choices. Such "analogies" are not philosophy, however. >> They're childish notions that resurrect the animistic mythology of our >> forbearers. >> >> You're wrong that I deny motion or change in the empirical reality that >> we call existence. Pirsig's levels are a pleasant euphemism that has no >> special significance for me. I see no objective evidence to support the >> theory that "higher levels" (social and intellectual) dominate "lower >> levels" (biological and inorganic), or that evolution is a progression >> toward some ideal Goodness. Nor do I understand any philosophical >> advantage in arbitrarily dividing the universe into a system of levels. >> >> On the other hand, I see much to be gained in understanding experiential >> existence as an awareness/otherness dichotomy. For one thing, it places >> the individual self distinctly in the realm of subjectivity, allowing the >> objective world to be recognized as a value construct of the self. It >> supports the principle of man's autonomy and freedom on which the >> enlightened nations of the world were founded. And it offers a plausible >> purpose for man's existence; namely, the realization of essential value, >> which by the power of his reasoning can direct himself and his fellow man >> toward a more authentic and moral society. >> >> Best regards, >> 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/ 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/
