From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 02:34:38 BST
Sam,
> Scott said:
> > It could be, but I see assuming that as a weak response to the argument.
> It
> > would still be necessary that space and time be transcended for the
> > incipient consciousness of elementary particles to merge into our
> perception
> > of big and complex things, so I see assuming that electrons or whatever
> have
> > some sort of ur-conscioousness as not getting us very far.
>
> The angle that I am coming at this from is a denial of 'materialism' (or
SOM
> even), by which I mean the idea that matter and mind are radically
different
> things. If you deny that fundamental axiom (which I think has to follow
for
> a Christian, BTW, given the claim of Incarnation; it's also, of course,
> ruled out in the MoQ) then it's not an 'assumption' that electrons have
> ur-consciousness, it's a basic perspective. (Same thing, different
> interpretation). I just smell a very faint whiff of dualism in your
> argument, which I'm uncomfortable with.
I would have thought the whiff would be of idealism, not dualism, but more
on that below. My objection to the phrase of "incipient consciousness" of
electrons is the "incipient" part. I think there is only full-blown
consciousness, and that the difficulty we have of imagining an electron as
conscious stems from the particular organization of our current kind of
consciousness, namely its subject/object form. An electron may be a bad
example, since it is really not much more than a piece in an elaborate
conceptual system known as modern physics. So take a rock. My assumption is
that seeing it as dead matter is a consequence of our limitation, not its.
On the other hand, we *do* experience it as dead matter, and that does need
explaining (which I am not about to do, but see Barfield for something
reasonable along these lines.). Also, I am not conjecturing that this
particular rock that I perceive is having thoughts, or experiencing any of
the sort of mental experiences that I have. What I conjecture is that what I
see as a dead rock is a tiny piece of a surface of some elaborate conceptual
system of which modern physics is a distant approximation.
The problem with this conjecture is our habit of treating "concept" as
strictly mental, hence I would guess the whiff of dualism or idealism. The
way I propose to avoid dualism is twofold. First, to treat every "thing" as
being word-like, since a word is at one and the same time a physical object
and a mental object (to our S/O consciousness). So a rock is word in a
language that Quality speaks, but we don't understand. We have some
knowledge of that language's syntax (physics), but none of its semantics.
Second, to notice that all manifestation can only be approached
(philosophically) with the logic of contradictory identity. (On this phrase,
an analogy is wave-particle duality in quantum physics. Just as we can only
see a particle as a wave OR as a particle, which within macroscopic physical
experience is an impossibility, so in inquiring into, say, the act of
perception, one invariably comes up with two concepts, like identity and
difference, which contradict each other, but require each other. Another
analogy are the duck/rabbit pictures -- one can see the duck or the rabbit,
but not both at once. Both analogies fall short, though, in that one can
also experience pictures that are just ducks, but one can never have just
identity, or just difference.) My conjecture is that the logic of
contradictory identity does not imply that reality is fundamentally
paradoxical, but that it does imply that our present kind of consciousness
is inadequate to understand reality. Which is to say, we are insane, and
need saving.
- Scott
P.S. I don't really know if I am responding to your quibbles, as you call
them, but figured I'd just expand, and see how it plays.
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 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 02:35:50 BST