Hi Mark (Andre mentioned) --
My response to John must have crossed your post back to me.
Imagine, if you will, that you were alone in the world (as a human). You had no need for communication, no thoughts as words would cross your mind. You would be unaware that your consciousness even existed, because there would be nothing to mirror it. This would be a state of complete unity. Now, along comes another person, and you realize that your relation to the world has changed, because you get feedback. This is a human condition. A network of communication is set up between us, that network becomes our thoughts. This is what I mean by socialization. Only we as humans can share this network, because we have like minded brains (so to speak). This network has no meaning to a colony of ants, nor should it. The planets have no use for this network, it is just a human thing. And as such, this, what we call intelligence, is just one of many such things. But it is our very own network.
Your network analogy is elegantly stated, but "shared intelligence" does not adequately define subjective consciousness. What you've described could equally apply to the worldwide computer network. It's "our very own network" but it is only a communication channel for information, not the process of intellection.
Again you have effectively circumvented the cognitive agent of awareness which doesn't need other persons (i.e., social exchange) in order to experience otherness. You (and John, Andre, Mary, etc.) try so hard to disinherit the subjective self that one gets the impression you're ashamed of it. As a consequence, you all tend to support the objective view that consciousness simply emerges from biological evolution.
For example, notice how Andre responded today:
Here you seem to be positing, once again, a dichotomy, an opposition, between observer and that which is observed, between the species and the 'fitted to their environment'. The one arises out of the other and the the other arises out of the one.(successfully or not).
I have posited a self/other dichotomy. A dichotomy in not a process of "emerging" or "arising", but rather a mutually dependent duality which, in my ontology, represents the primary division of existence. Since everything that follows this dichotomy (in space/time) is differential in nature, Self/Other initiates all Difference. It accounts for being and nothing, life and death, here and there, active and passive, goodness and evil, attraction and repulsion, large and small, light and dark, and all other contrariety experienced in the relational universe.
Now, I have no idea what this has to do with Quality, but I'll figure it out.
Allow me to figure it for you. The essence of this dichotomy is sensible value, the affinity of the cognizant subject for its estranged Essence. The "patterns" are our own proprietary value constructs.
Fantastic as it sounds, this simple ontology is consistent with both physics and spirituality, accommodates the MoQ's Quality (Value) in the existential sense, and offers a transcendental meaning to life which is absent in most metaphysical theories.
Thanks for the opportunity, Mark. 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/md/archives.html
