Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:47:18 +0100 From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> Subject: BHA: re:Identity (or Stones in Summer) Dear Guenter >To say that consciousness is >enfolded in matter does not mean it's present in all matter, any more >than the view that human beings are an emergent species of nature >means that all animals are (actual or potential) human beings. On the current story of the big bang, I think it does entail this, bearing in mind that we're speaking at the level of possibility and fine structure, and not of the actual: given consciousness as we know it, its possibility must have been enfolded in the particles at the moment of the bang, hence enfolded in all matter as such. The metaphysically materialist story that mind emerged from matter can only be true if matter 'contained' the possibility of mind -- and this must be true at every stage of any diachronic explanatory reduction, including a stage at which there was 'just stones' so to speak. (Unless of course we inhabit two comoses, one in which mind is enfolded in matter and one in which it isn't.) Given the openness of emergent processes (and also CR's anti-anthropism) I can't see that this entails viewing animals or anything else as potentially human. >We >don't have to claim that there's consciousness in stones - even as a >paradoxical conand - to make the point that we are connected with >stones by a common origin. True, but there are other points at issue, and in any case, while to say that stones are conscious is on the face of it paradoxical, to say that they are *implicitly* conscious in the above sense (which is what the saying *means*) is not (if of course the above is correct) -- it's a graphic way of referring to the objective intelligibility of matter and of specifying the subjective condition for identity consciousness and alethic truth. The other points at issue are Bhaskar's drive to help effect a paradigm shift in which (once capitalism is gone!) we will no longer relate to Being instrumentally or self-preservatively (to use Adorno's phrase) but as intrinsically valuable -- the doctrine of the implicit consciousness of matter philosophically underpins the re-enchantment of the world (or at any rate is one of the underpinnings). Mervyn PS. It being summer in the Northern hemisphere, this sub-thread keeps reminding me of a slim volume of poetry by the Cypriot/Australian philosopher Tony Palma called 'Stones in Summer', which, like a lot of poetry, illustrates some of the relevant issues, in particular our experience of identity consciousness. In message <1863521065.20030620000912-AT-unsw.edu.au>, Günter Minnerup <g.minnerup-AT-unsw.edu.au> writes >Dear Mervyn, > >On Thursday, June 19, 2003, you wrote: > >> PS re consciousness in stones > >> Why does he put it that way? Because he wants us to >> re-think and re-do the way we relate to the world > >But it is acutely misleading, is it not? To say that consciousness is >enfolded in matter does not mean it's present in all matter, any more >than the view that human beings are an emergent species of nature >means that all animals are (actual or potential) human beings. We >don't have to claim that there's consciousness in stones - even as a >paradoxical conand - to make the point that we are connected with >stones by a common origin. > >Regards, >Gnter > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005