On Tuesday 06 March 2007 1:14 AM Jos writes to Joe: Hi Jos (Ham can now see the two names together)
[Jos]Hi Joe Much though I love to disagree with said pair, I feel the starting point that "awareness" comes before reality the best one available. [Joe] I do not agree that "awareness comes before reality-existence" is a meaningful starting point to explicate "existence-reality". I do not experience the absolute. Change is evident and to require a logical absolute of "awareness before reality-existence change" is mathematical dogma. At the intellectual level evolution-change, is based in law. What law? The level of Proprietary awareness (social level) examines individuals and sees relationships which evolve into laws a higher level, the intellectual level. IMO In each individual sentient there is a mechanical (cosmic) and a possible personal (conscious) evolution-change. The existence of mechanical evolution-change is different from the existence of conscious evolution-change. [Jos] My disagreement comes down to who's awareness we're talking about. I like to refine what is meant by "awareness" such that it becomes a universal analogy applied to any type of "experience" including the interractions of inorganic compounds or objects. Now I can say everything is "aware" at least to a limited extent right throughout the static levels. Using MOQ speak I would say that DQ is awareness, and SQ is like static memories of pattrens in this groundstuff whose relative complexity/derivative order can describe their position in a heirarchy. [Joe] I do not see DQ as awareness. I see DQ as change within a level of law. [Jos] >From this perspective awareness absolutely comes before reality, as >"awareness" is the same as the the essentialists essence and the static >patterns are equivolent to the "reality" that forms in the 1st split from >essence into existence/non existence. With awareness being proprietry to the objects themselves I am allowing them to self actualise rather than waiting for the human to come along and mercifully build them into his/her solipsist nightmare/fantasy. Generally folks like to imply that I'm confering agency upon objects and animals along with this awareness which I'm not, (necessarily). The opposing view seems to be that restrictively "man's" awareness actualises reality out of essence but I wont attempt to sum up how this is expected to work as I know I wont do it justice. Jos [Joe] I can not follow what you are saying. I do not experience the absolute. Joe > > In proposing this I realize I am confronting Ham and Micah's > description > that there can be no division of existence since awareness is > prior to > reality. I would suggest that Essence is also hierarchical > and evolution is > a true description in metaphysics. I am incapable of experiencing an > absolute. 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/
