From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Aug 07 2005 - 08:06:47 BST
Greetings, Platt, with reference also to David M. --
> Hope your vacation was a good one, i.e., high quality. :-)
It was, thank you. I'm too old to take extended roadtrips. Last week we
traveled northeast to visit Danbury, CT, Lenox and Sturbridge (Village)
Mass., the highlight of the trip being a concert at Tanglewood's
Koussevitsky Shed to hear our favorite soprano, Fredericka van Stade, in a
program of French music.
You and David Morey have raised what you both see as a logical challenge to
my concept of a "sentient" Essence. I'll get to that point in a moment.
First, I want to make it clear that Kaufman rejects this idea also, making
what I consider a paradoxical distinction between "awareness" and
"consciousness".
Keeping in mind that I'm foreshortening Kaufman's arguments by quoting only
his conclusions, here is what he says about awareness:
"As we've shown, there exists nothing we can call a physical reality in the
absence of an experience of that reality. We can also state that there
exists nothing we can call a physical experience in the absence of an
awareness of that experience. ...In other words, awareness is intrinsic to
the existence of what we experience as physical reality."
So far, so good -- at least I'm in complete agreement and have said
essentially the same thing in my own thesis. The problem arises when he
tries to relate awareness to consciousness:
"...the brain isn't the ultimate source of our awareness, for the ultimate
source of awareness is existence itself. With that said, let's now turn our
attention to this ultimate source of awareness and experience.
"If awareness is existence being relative somewhere, then what could we call
existence being absolutely everywhere? Consciousness! Consciousness is
what exists absolutely everywhere and awareness is consciousness localized
to a relative somewhere."
A bit later he says:
"We mistakenly call our awareness our consciousness because awareness is the
child of consciousness, but awareness as such isn't consciousness.
...Absolute existence is consciousness, and all realities are formed through
consciousness-existence coming to exist in relation to itself. ...Therefore
consciousness isn't a product of physical reality, but rather physical
reality is a product of consciousness."
That conclusion would appear to be consistent with both the MoQ and
Essentialism.
However, by defining absolute existence as Consciousness and denying it
awareness in this absolute state, his primary source becomes unconscious
consciousness -- an obvious contradiction in terms.
Okay, now as to my contention that Essence (the primary source) is
sentient...
Your dictionary defines the term as "conscious of sense impressions," and I
assume it would apply to your cat's consciousness as well as our own. I
have no quarrel with that empirical definition, since the only sentience
creatures are familiar with is that caused by sense impressions. But this
does not mean that there is no sentience beyond the dualism of finitude.
Indeed, if the primary source is all-encompassing, it logically must
encompass sentience in its absolute metaphysical state. What is absurd to
me in this otherwise plausible ontology is to name Consciousness as the
ultimate reality and deny it sensibility.
I note some effort by you and other Pirsigians to attribute consciousness to
the material universe, as a substitute for teleology, suggesting that atoms
and molecules -- or the Quality that creates them -- have sentience. I find
this notion metaphysically unacceptable also, although it is not
self-contradictory.
How do I resolve the paradox?
First of all, I don't posit existence as the primary reality. That
eliminates the need for an infinite regression of prior causes and the
problems inherent in assigning existential attributes (like Quality) to the
absolute source. Secondly, I base this source on "sensibility", which my
Webster's New Collegiate defines as: "ability to receive sensations;
awareness of and responsiveness toward something (as emotion in another)."
Now, you will argue that the 'something' producing the sensations is an
otherness, hence that sensibility presupposes duality. This is true in the
relational world of existence; however it does not invalidate Absolute
Sensibility as "self-awareness", (i.e., Essence aware of itself), for
example, which does not require an SOM duality.
As I replied to David Morey on this issue:
> While it is my opinion that no specific
> (i.e., finite) attribute is assignable to the primary source,
> its link to conscious awareness does imply "sentience in its
> absolute state", whatever that might represent metaphysically.
> Without it, we may as well forego the idea of a primary
> source altogether, since it adds nothing to the meaning of
> the life-experience.
Again, for those interested in the URT, a review of the author's
introduction provides a fairly comprehensive synopsis of his thesis and is
accessible at http://www.unifiedreality.com/.
Thanks again for your insights, Platt, You always manage to fit my ideas
artfully into the context of the MoQ, despite the metaphysical
incompatabilities in our respective philosophies. You must have been an
outstanding advertising copywriter ;-).
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 07 2005 - 15:54:31 BST