[Ham]
You see, Arlo, you are stuck in the time warp of causality and are
continually trying to "rephrase" my ontogeny in temporal terms.
[Arlo]
Not at all. I am trying to understand how your ontology accounts for
the appearance of "man's cognitive faculties" in the cosmos. You seem
to be okay with the statement "Well, it is here, that's all that's
important". To me, understanding better how/why it got here is much
more interesting, and telling. And that you seem to absolve
"philosophy" of any responsibility to account for the man's
observations, is strange.
It is not enough, IMHO, to say "man evolved from apes", without
offering an explanation of whether or not that evolution included the
evolution of man's consciousness. And if consciousness DID evolve
from its "level" in pre-historic man to its "level" in modern times,
then you have to also account for a mechanism by which that
consciousness evolves? (E.g., did it evolve over generations due to
genetic adaptions? or did it evolve as the resulf of
socio-enculturation? Or did it evolve by another mechanism different
from these?)
Also, since you consider man's cognitive faculties an "essent", would
you also consider the cognitive faculties of apes also "essents"?
Believe me, I do understand why you refuse to enter this arena, and I
don't think its to serve "philosophy".
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/
