On Sept. 2 at 1:01 PM, DMB quoted Robert Richardson on William James:
"In 'Does Consciousness Exist?', which Bertrand Russell claimed 'startled
the world', James says the answer is no. 'Consciousness is the name of a
non-entity'. As we generally conceive of it, consciousness is the 'faint
rumor left behind by the disappearing 'soul' upon the air of philosophy'.
If we were to speak precisely, James says, consciousness is 'only a name
for the fact that the 'content' of experiences IS KNOWN'. ...
The next day Andre praised this quote, comparing it to a statement by
another writer on Buddhism. He also added an observation of his own
regarding contradictory propositions:
Andre:
A 'knower' without anything 'known' is a contradiction in terms.
The 'objective' looking over the 'subjective' is a contradiction in terms.
It is a fallacy, and for some here on this list to suggest that the
intellectual level is just that: the objective over the subjective, is
plain silly.
I don't believe that William James or Andre Broerson have clarified the
issue of duality by these simplistic statements.
James' assertion that consciousness does not exist because it is "the name
of a non-entity" certainly can't mean that there is no consciousness. If
that were true, why would we, as conscious organisms, be trying to define
what consciousness is? Likewise, I fail to see the reasoning in Andre's
assertion that "a 'knower' without anything 'known' is a contradiction in
terms." I submit that "the existence of things without a knower" is just as
contradictory a proposition. The Knower has the "potential to be aware".
If that potentiality is not primary to consciousness, there is no
knowledge...and I should add, no value either.
Andre later concedes that duality (dualism) exists:
Yes there are dualisms. We cannot do without them. Our language is
an attempt to assist us in making explicit these quality events, these
relationships. The West has taken these to the extreme, indeed that
dualims are opposed to each other and as dmb has pointed out in various of
his references, different schools have sought different ways of uniting
the two. Thing is; they were never 'opposed'.
It is clear to me that subjectivity/objectivity characterizes the duality of
existence. The reason philosophers like Pirsig want to dismiss duality is
not that the concept makes metaphysics fuzzy, or that Descartes and the
dualists were "intellectually challenged". Rather, it's because they
believe existence is all there is; that existence therefore must equate to
Reality. From this belief system (existentialism) comes the notion that
mind and matter, consciousness and patterns, are unified by Value which is
then posited as the "true" Reality. But, as I have pointed out previously,
even "value" requires a conscious subject.
Incidentally, I've been reading John Searle's 'Mind" recently, mainly to
satisfy my curiosity about the man's philosophy. It is a very thorough
introduction to consciousness as a process, but it's not nearly as
interesting as D'Souza's 'Life After Death' which actually explores the
mind/matter issue in metaphysical terms. (I expect to have more to say
about these writers at a later time.) Meanwhile, I'm still reviewing the MD
posts on a daily basis, although sadly I've seen no evidence that you folks
are any closer to agreement on the MoQ than when I joined this forum eight
years ago.
Happy Labor Day to all,
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/md/archives.html
