I think the recognition that there are *other* conciousnesses is
important.
This is partly the realisation that the conciousness we speak for as 'I'
*isn't* the basic stuff of the universe - but it is also something else.
The reality of your consciousness just strikes me as obvious (if I'm not
wraped up in some fantastic world of my own fabrication, or, which is the
same thing, pre-linguistically).
'Consciousness has us rather than the other way around'? Almost. Except
that not being an object it can't have properties.
There is no right way of expressing this in English. This relationship
between concsiouness and subjects is before english. Before language. Or:
it *is* language.
Elephant to stay
> From: Marty Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 13:10:56 -0700
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>
> Hi Gary - Excuse me for jumping in, but this line coincides with the direction
> I am leaning in right now. I'm currently of the mind that the basic 'stuff'
> of the universe is consciousness, and that Quality could be the name for that
> which propels it into value patterns, which may be dynamic or static. I don't
> see c/a (to use your term) as an attribute that something can have, but rather
> as THE primary (and only?) existent that has everything else. Our language
> confuses the issue; when we say that "I am a conscious entity", it sounds like
> we are saying we are one thing and our consciousness is another, i.e., we HAVE
> consciousness. I think it may be the other way around - consciousness HAS us,
> in a way. There is consciousness, pure and undefined; once we start
> identifying, naming and segmenting, we perceive static objects (and subjects,
> such as the self), that we perceive as the physical stuff of the universe.
> This is about as far as I have thought this through and there are a number of
> questions I have, but this feels right to me so far. Any comments?
>
> marty j
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gary Charpentier Sent:
> Tuesday, May 01, 2001 10:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>
>
> Elephant,
>
> Thank you so much for responding! I have to wonder if Subject couldn't be more
> accurately described as a pattern of consciousness or awareness (hereafter
> referenced:"c/a"). This pattern of c/a then detects or discerns Value perhaps
> as a degree of Quality inherent in an object, or even in another subject
> (when, as we often do, we view a fellow subject as object).
>
> I would further suggest that DQ is a force, rather than a sort of material
> medium (in the artistic sense, i.e. paint), which influences patterns of value
> in a positive way. Much like gravity or magnetism, Dynamic Quality is a force
> or an influence for the Good. Static Quality is the pattern as-latched from
> the last application of DQ. Does this track?
>
> Gary
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:03 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>
>>
>> Gary - I think I agree with you. This why I keep asking whether 'subject'
>> might mean something more than pattern of value. My answer: yes, I think
>> so: a subject is a point of view, an imaginative power responsible for the
>> patterning of SQ (the world doesn't individuate itself). Platt, I think
>> that pretty much gives my view on your 'am I mistaken?' question:
>> Yes. For
>> Quality doesn't cut itself up, you know. There's a smoking gun here, or a
>> choped bit of firewood, however you want to cohere your metaphors. The
>> point being: no cuts without cutters. And SQ threads of SQ
>> patterns are cut
>> up bits of quality.
>>
>> No?
>>
>> Elephant
>>
>>> From: "Gary Charpentier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:41:15 -0500
>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Subject: MD Consciousness/Awareness
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
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
