I find Webster's dictionary invaluable when sorting out such questions of
language. The primary definition of consciousness does not distinguish it
from awareness, but subsequent definitions use the word "awareness" as an
indicator of consciousness. It has been my (subjective) experience that one
does not have to be mentally conscious to be "aware" of something happening,
i.e. in a dream. Conversely, one need only ride a motorcycle in heavy
traffic to realize that the conscious state of fellow motorists in no way
implies any real awareness of what they are doing.
I want to take issue with these statements offered by Platt and Elephant:
> > You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a 'contradiction in
> > terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
> > threads to be woven and patterned together.
> >
> > I am glad to concur on that, but we need to take it a stage further:
> > SUBJECTS are also patterns of value.
That is such a touchy distinction! I believe, when we designate a human
being as the SUBJECT in question, that the term "pattern of value" cannot be
confined to the static state. While it is true that some humans seem to be
very eager to achieve some static pattern of value and not proceed any
further from there (mindsets), most human subjects exhibit a preference for
dynamic quality to enable them to move beyond established static patterns
towards something "better". But does this make our human subject a pattern
of dynamic value? I don't think so, but I can't articulate exactly why.
Perhaps this is where some of you folks can help me?
Cheers,
Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 6:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
>
>
> Good point Jonathan - you've made things clearer and brought
> something to my
> attention. I haven't thought very much about that way of putting it and
> it's pretty important. 'Subject', in so far as it means 'pattern
> of value'
> isn't what's aware.
>
> But of course, I think that there is something else that
> 'subject' can mean.
> Consciousness? It sounds odd to say that consciousness is aware. Ok: *a*
> consciousness is aware. But what about the introduction of numericisation
> here ("*a*")......
>
> Ho hm Jonathan......
>
> Hm. And does RMP speak of this 'something else' too?
>
> -Elephant
>
> > From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:20:37 +0300
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: MD atomic awareness: reprise
> >
> > Hi Elephant, Platt, Roger, Marco and all,
> >
> > Elephant, it's good to see you back.
> >
> >> PLATT:
> >> Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
> >
> > ELEPHANT:
> > Yes, and my 'slant' on that, if you please, is that patterns of
> value, being
> > patterns of SQ, are patterns of *confered* value: complexes of
> judgements.
> > You do recognise don't you, that a pattern of DQ is a 'contradiction in
> > terms'? Since after all DQ being continuous can't be divided into any
> > threads to be woven and patterned together.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am glad to concur on that, but we need to take it a stage further:
> > SUBJECTS are also patterns of value.
> >
> > Since Elephant wants us to deny the property awareness to
> objects like atoms
> > BECAUSE they are patterns, the same reasoning should apply to
> subjects, in
> > short, to the whole of SQ.
> > Once we do this, awareness ceases to exist. I regard this as a
> step back to
> > the world of absolute determinism.
> >
> > My own understanding of the MoQ is that there is nothing
> absolute about the
> > subject dichotomy. Subjects are also objects to the entity that does the
> > conferring of value.
> > Thus, the division of patterns between objects and subjects is relative.
> > For example, one might for the sake of argument regard
> Elephants opinion of
> > Shakespeare as subjective, but since he has given it to us in
> e-mail ("...I
> > care less for Bill ..."), I can state objectively that Elephant does not
> > particularly care for the bard.
> >
> > I thus think we should careful about using words like "awareness" as
> > metaphysical cleavage terms that delineate between subjects and
> objects. In
> > particular, we must avoid making any such cleavage absolute.
> That's what I've
> > been trying to say since this "awareness" thread started.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> > MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
