Ooh Goodie! a reply!
Thanks for your input Sri. Before we engage in this a bit further i'd like
to clarify some of the terms that you are using so i don't get things mixed
up. So what i'll do is to examine these words and put forth my analysis.
I think that your 'Ascribe-Suscribe' dichotomy is a sleight of mouth. like
the magician's sleight of hand, you force me into a duality that i
transcend. "If i can't dis-prove an idea then i subscribe to it". By what
logic is this a causal statement? By whose and by what standards must
something be proven? In the middle ages, most people had no cognizance of
black holes, did they 'subscribe' to them?
The word 'Essence' (with a big E), are you speaking of a metaphysical
relaity or an epistemological reality? It seems to me that you're using
'Essence' in the metaphysical sense, i.e. independent of perception. I
disagree. For me, 'essence' is that important physical or conceptual detail
that allows humans to differentiate one item from another. We may
distinguish between Men's and Women's basketballs on account of size. we may
dsitinguish between land on account of titles and deeds, which are useful to
operate in America, but don't exist as a fact of nature. Please explain if
and where you differ from my view.
My questions about Spinoza's propositions are: what is a 'substance' that it
is 'infinite'? Is that 'infinite' interms of the way we can measure that
'substance' or that it is existentially infinite (whatever that means). And
what qualifies as an 'attribute'? Of course no moment is the same. Due to
gravity, the earth's rotation and climate, a rock isn't the same rock it was
a couple of hours ago. But we can still call that rock "stonehenge" or
"Mount Rushmore".
Two other words that you use are a bit hazy to me. When you use the word
'concieve' (with a little c) are you speaking of the metaphorical 'bringing
into existence' or are you talking of a person's 'cognitive process'? And
when you talk of an 'attribute' (part of a thing's essence?) what are you
talking of? what qualifies as an attribute? Which attributes are essential?
Is it velocity, size, color, use for humanity? Please be more specific.
I'm asking you to clarify for people who are ignorant to Spinoza, such as
myself. We, well i at least, need a sort of translation in order to clarify
terms. Just as we may agree to disagree, we have to agree which words mean
what in order to have a meaningful conversation.
(In a friendly tone) Sri: if you can't distinguish between a thought and a
molecule of water- do you literally drink books and read water?
Amilcar
PS: when you respond to this message, i'll re-examine, explain and expand
upon my previous email. And then i'll try to link this discussion with stuff
from ZMM and Lila.
As a preview: my 'consciousness' and 'existence' propositions are
qualitiatively different from the 'ascribe'/'subscribe' dichotomy on, at
least, the grounds that 'ascribing' and 'suscribing' are acts of cognition
whereas 'consciousness' and 'existence' are not. Toodles!
----Original Message Follows----
From: Da Indian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MF consciousness
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 08:36:30 -0800 (PST)
Hi Mr.Amilcar,
Howz Life? First, I would like to cogratulate You,
on having a very good and dielectic imagination.
Please allow me to make my objections of your theory.
My Epistemology and Logic are some what influenced by
Spinoza. So, I will be taking some of my definitions
from his book - Ethis, concerning God. I believe the
methodology he uses is the best.
Now, here I want to make myself very clear about MY
distinction between Subscribing and Ascribing to an
Idea.
Subscribing, I say, is a mere allowance for the
non-confermance of an Idea. In other words, as long as
you cannot theoritically or practically, disprove an
Idea, you subscribe to it.
Ascribing, I say, is an intellectual ideanization of a
similar kind of Idea about the Idea. In other words,
you have a congnitive knowledge of a similar kind
Idea, generated from your conception of the Idea.
For example, I propose - "I suddenly believe that
there cannot be a creation without a creator". You
also back up your claim by saying - "Since, there is
a-prior knowledge of the creation in the creator, it
follows - the existance proves itself". Remember, this
is just an example. I am not ready to backup this
statement.
Ok. Now, if you are right now unable to disprove my
idea, you will subscribe to it. But, if you can
actually feel, in some spiritual way, just a felling,
that something like this is possible. You don't
exactly know what I am congniting about my theory. You
can never know it. But, you understand the same Idea
in another way, depending on your attributes and
modifications. So, I say, I ASCRIBE to Spinoza, rather
than SUBSCRIBE to his theories. Some of terms, I have
defined later in my statement.
1. You have said - You have to be conscious to think
about consciousness.
I object to this beacuse, you are giving an example
for a term you are trying to define, and trying to go
beyond the term, even before defining it, taking the
example as true, the point proving itself.
You can't do that. You have to first define it,
have a hypothesis for it, test the hypothesis with a
practical experiment like taking a hypothetical
example of the definition, refine your hypothesis,
till you arrive at the required satisfaction of
understanding, finally say - "Yep, I know this".
2. You have also said in your mail that - So the two
truths on which all, yes i said it all, sane thoughts
are based are 'consciousness'and 'existence'.
I object to this beacuse, you have not defined
those terms used in that satement. No definition
actually exist, apart from a totally subjective view
of those two ideas.
Let me present my own theory of the differences
between thoughts and substances.
>From Spinoza's Propositions and Definitions,
We know - Every substance is necessarily Infinite.
We also know - No attribute of substance can be
concieved, from which it will follow that - substance
can be divided.
Attribute he defines as - By attribute, I mean that
which the intellect perceives as constituting the
essence of substance.
Modifications as -By mode, I mean the modifications
["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in,
and is conceived through, something other than itself.
Essence as -I consider as belonging to the essence of
a thing that, which being given, the thing is
necessarily given also, and, which being removed, the
thing is necessarily removed also; in other words,
that without which the thing, and which itself without
the thing, can neither be nor be conceived.
My derivation from these propositions is
What has to be the Moral or Ideal Behaviour of
substance?
>From definition 3. of Spinoza which is - By substance,
I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived
through itself: in other words, that of which a
conception can be formed independently of any other
conception, we know substance cannot be conceived in
any other order other than throught itself. What we
conceive and perceive is only an appearence.
Therefor, the substance's behaviour is derived from
the its attributes and modifications, which are
derived from the necessity of the divine nature which
follows as in the infinite number of things in
infinite ways. So, the fundamental reality of any
substance cannot be concieved. We only see
appearences.
But, the problem is, God is only the indwelling cause,
but not the transient cause. It means the transient
cause for the substance is existing in itself. So,a
substance can only be be concieved morally
(Ideally)only by itself.
What you see is NOT what you get.
So, once you don't even know what you get, you cannot
have a Ideal Conception about its behaviour.
I also realized that, since we are accepting that, all
attributes of substance are derived from the
necessitation of divine nature, which is infinite
things in infinite ways, you also have to agree that
- it also means all things which fall within the
sphere of infinite intellect of God. So, that should
also include thoughts, since they also have to be the
modification of things, derived from its attributes.
So, I claim, I cannot distinguigh between a thought
process and, lets say, a molecule of water.
Because, if I ask myself, I don't even know in what
modifications and attributes, a thought is differing
from a molecule of water - I don't know. I can't even
say - a thought is a Mental process and a molecule is
a Physicalprocess. If I say that, I should be able to
distinguish between their essenses. Because, if I only
distinguish them only on the appearences,I will miss
the core, the essense. So, I can't distinguish between
them. So, I have to say - Since, I can't distinguish
between two Objects, they have the Same Essense. But
they have different appearences. We know -Essense and
Existence are the same.
Therefore I cannot, at all costs,think about, what
might be the morally Ideal behaviour of a Thought
Process, because I cannot even distinguish between a
thought and a molecule of water. I just DON'T KNOW the
Object. What is it made of? What are its attributes?
What are its Modifications? I can never know. Right?
Do you think, I going in the right direction?
Wipe that Simle OFF your face! Thats not a question.
Thats an example. What I wanted to say was, you can't
even conceptualize - what can be Ideal Conception of
this thought?
So, without even knowing the Ideal Conception of an
Idea, you cannot find out the validity of a statement.
Beacuse, you just don't know the Right way. The Moral
way and Order of the Universe. So, I think, before you
make any statements of yours, like in your mail, you
have to first understand their Right, Ideal meaning.
As far as I know, Attitude will not do at all.
Please forgive me, if I have stepped on some toes
here.
These are just some Ideas. We are just discussing some
interests of us. So, no Offence.
As the Communists say - First let us Agree to
Disagree.
Love,
Sri.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
Laugh like its your last
dance like nobody's watching and
love like it won't hurt
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
