Hi Ham, Thanks for the reference, you added .net to it, but I found it anyway.
You are right in saying to not get caught up in the details. Sometimes, however, I must go from one step to the next (carefully). I have perused your website (well done, by the way!) and I feel I have some idea of your separation of the subjective from the objective. My quest is to look at the root of it. If indeed our subjective awareness is confined to the logical mind, then we are forming a construct of what appears to us through the various senses which has meaning to us. And although the border of such a thing is fuzzy, we can describe that as other. I have asked (many moons ago) where the other/self boundary is. As a biochemist, I know that we change every molecule in our bodies regularly. So we are left with self as Presence, so to speak. A good analogy is a waterfall. In essence the waterfall does not really exist in a solid sense. One could say that the waterfall is actually the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. The human body is indeed a waterfall, and, speaking as a Bioelectrochemist (my Ph.D.), we are harnessing high potential energy as reduced substances and then converting it into awareness. Kind of like a waterwheel on a waterfall. It is that flow of energy that produces the sense of being. Of course there are lots of other ways of describing it (pictures and poetry included), but I still dwell in the world of science. So, where does the subjective begin? At the root of it, I can only say that it doesn't. There are those who believe that it is the thought process, but that certainly hasn't worked for me, since there is so much going on that is personal, outside the thought process. So, here is where Quality comes in. Most of my interpretation still comes from ZMM. If it is defined as the pre-intellectual awareness, which then gets converted to thought, then that is where I have to look. Unfortunately, while the intellect may provide a path, it does not provide the knowing. I understand the negation of essence in a knowing way, but it does not work for me intellectually. Yes, I have read Heiddeger, and his sudden creation of nouns leaves me lacking, because he then goes on the define them teleologically. But, I am slow sometimes. Anyway, thanks for the reply, Mark On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark -- > > Cheers Ham, >> Thanks for the attribute of elegance, but I think you miss my point. >> More my fault than anything. But, these discussions do allow >> elaboration. If you meant to trivialize the analogy by comparing it >> to a computer network, that is fine. But, it is much more than that. >> Perhaps it doesn't fit into a Ham box, but let me try again. I am >> arguing against emergence, I believe the emergence theory is yours. >> But, as you suggest, I will not delve into Essence. >> >> I in no way am circumventing the cognitive agent of awareness >> as you call it. In fact, I am speaking directly to it. This agent is at >> the heart of what I am trying to convey to you. I will use some >> analogies from child psychology to perhaps explain it a different way. >> ...When a child is born, it has no concept of other. In fact it cannot >> distinguish itself from its mother for awhile. When a child is born, >> >> all it has is Will. This then becomes more All Self and No Other. >> What this means is that during the early stages of development, >> a human has NO SOM. I'll spare you the other stages. >> >> There are people, labeled as autistic (for lack of a better term) >> who are capable of living part time in an autistic world of pure >> sense, and then capable of communicating with the rest of us >> as to what that type of consciousness is like in our own logical >> terms. Now, I don't want to seem kind of fringe on this kind of thing. >> If you are interested in the applications of SOM and Quality to >> autism, then I suggest you read Autism: The Lost Art of Sensing >> by Donna Williams. >> > > Mark, if the "emergence theory" belongs to anybody it is Robert M. Pirsig. > I certainly haven't fostered it. Your analysis of SOM awakening is > interesting, although I am not qualified to pass judgment on it. What you > call "will" is closer to what I've heard psychologists identify as "libido". > Whether it's instinctive in humans (and thus of biological origin), or the > "intent" component of human consciousness, I'm not prepared to say. > Actually, I doubt that the psychologists are, either. > > I may look into Williams' 'Lost Art of Sensing', as I feel studies on > autism can shed some light on normal "associative" development. My son was > diagnosed as having ADHD in mid-life, and my wife thinks I exhibit some of > his symptoms. However, I don't believe "living part time in a world of pure > sense" characterizes this malady as much as what I would call solipsistic > behavior. > > One of the problems I face in presenting the concepts of Essentialism to > new people is determining precisely what they need to know. If I say too > much, I am challenged on logical or dialectical grounds; if I don't say > enough, it's the lack of understanding that hampers communication. Getting > involved in the details of evolutionary history, quantum physics, or > psychological anomalies tends to serve as a distraction rather than an aid > to understanding the fundamentals. > > Suffice it to say that words do improve memory so that >> if you attach some awareness to a word, it is easier to recall >> that awareness through this word. It is sometimes proposed >> that we think in words. Nothing could be farther from the truth. >> It is only words when communication is involved, it is only >> SOM when words are involved. Most of our consciousness >> is wordless. >> > > Here I agree with you completely. I have never subscribed to semiotic > theories of knowledge, which is part of the reason I have resisted the > Pirsigian theory of the socially-derived intellect. People who live on > desert islands are no less intelligent that those of us who benefit from > social acculturation. Nor do I believe that intellectual capability > (intellection) originated with the ancient Greeks. > > You provide vague notions of this cognitive agent of awareness >> by wrapping it in cosmic separation from something else. Sure, >> water becomes gas when it gets hot, and thus separates, but >> how does such a notion create cognitive awareness? You are >> missing a lot of pieces in between. I would be more than happy >> to have you present to me how personal consciousness arises. >> > > The development of self-awareness is too complex a subject to chronicle in > a posted message. There's a brief outline of the origin of consciousness in > an essay I put together for my website. (You can access it at > www.essentialism.net/becomeaware.net.) In a nutshell, I liken its > emergence to a particular "difference" or change in the holistic sensibility > of the fetus -- the sudden feeling of localized pain or discomfort, for > example. This initiates a process of "intellectual negation" in which the > disturbance or interruption is identified as different from the placid state > of uterine self-awareness. As each new experience is presented to the > infant it becomes recognized as a specific "other", to be named later in its > post-partum environment, along with observed phenomena which are > intellectualized as "beings" external to the self. > > > So, I have no intention of disinheriting the subjective sense, >> in fact I am embracing it. It is your pseudo logical >> encapsulation of this sense into an ineffable construct >> which creates the disinheritance. What I see so far is >> much hand-waving. >> > > I hope the above notes translate as something more than hand-waving, > although I went through some hand-writhing before posting them to you. > Again, I also hope we don't allows ourselves to get lost in the details. > > Cheers back to you, Mark > 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 > 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
