JCS-ONLINE is an email list that discusses consciousness studies from a broad multi-disciplinary perspective. is a Public Group with 1127 members.

--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com, Otmar Pokorny <otmar.pokorny@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> We,
>
> > >Otmar: So, for example, you can't work with sense-motive-presence, because they are not three parts of the same whole (Sense), there is no progression of the same idea, it is not cyclical as past, present, future, all existing at once, like a Cosmic wheel, at the same time, as I recently suggested.
>
> >Craig: That's like saying you can't have a spirit, because you are only body, mind, soul.
>
> Otmar: I don't see it. You have made a claim with no evidential support.

No, I'm not making a claim, I am rebutting your claim, and I gave you rational evidence by analogy, to which you say "I don't see it." without any reasoning behind it.

>Where is the logical argument?

Where is the logical criticism?

>What do YOU mean by "spirit"? Soul, mind, body, are parts of the same whole, God.

Whatever I want to make up is part of God. Spirit, soul, and mind are fuzzy because they try to reify experience as an objective phenomenon. They don't work that way. I have no spirit, soul, or mind. I am an experience in which spiritual, emotional, and mental qualities are presented in a participatory and proprietary way.

>They are a cyclical progression on what has been called the Cosmic Wheel of life, soul->mind->body->soul->mind->body... "Soul" and "spirit" are aspects of the same whole, each with their own connotations. Check any dictionary, and you will invariably find both terms linked together, among the other denotations and connotations of those words.

I could not be any less interested in looking at dictionaries. I'm not interested in pre-scientific concepts of the cosmos either, except to the extent that they happen to coincide with my own understanding. Sometimes there are some useful concepts there, but mostly it is about over-signifying subjectivity, and offers no more than eliminative materialism does in explaining awareness.

>
> >Craig: You continue to put words into my mouth and then say they don't make sense.
>
> Otmar: Again, you are making unwarranted, unsubstantiated claims.

Not at all. When you are claiming that I said things that I never said and that I never would say, I am doing what anyone should do.

> It is an attack against me, not my argument.

You said that soul is a can opener. If you deny this then it is an attack against me, not my argument.

> You constantly utilize logical fallacies, straw man fallacy, ad hominem fallacy, and the fallacy of equivocation, to name just a few, to try to win your arguments.

Hypocrisy check, aisle one. Anything that follows "You constantly..." is almost certainly going to be an ad hominem attack, as it is in this case.

> You have even used the ad hominem fallacy to argue that you are not using the fallacy of equivocation. For example, I pointed these out in my last response to you.

You only accuse me of fallacies that you commit. There is no argument at all.

>
> >Craig: Can you show me where I said that sensory-motive presence is not part of sense?
>
> Otmar: You are taking my words out of context (another informal fallacy). I said sensory motive presence does not qualify Sense as an absolute, a subtle relationship, but does qualify it as a gross relationship, for several reasons. 1) "Sensory" is not a part of Sense. 2) sensory-motive-presence is not progressive. 3) It is not cyclical.

Are you claiming that "Sensory" is not part of sense or are you claiming that I said sensory is not part of sense? This is just word games and and discord.

>
> >Craig: The terms are synonymous. Motive is sense too. Presence is sense.
>
>
> Otmar: They are not progressions of the same whole.

Of course they are.

> Time and space are absolutes. Past, present, future are progressions of time. Here, in-between, there, is a progression in space. The Ouroboros is a progression, in, through, and out of itself. Sensory motive presence is not a progression, does not exist inter-relationally, does not describe an absolute, but has all the qualifications to describe a gross relationship.

Progressions are nothing but a sense of progress. Time and space are nothing but a sense of experienced sequence and division. It's all sense. Sense is the capacity to experience and project experience, which is sensory-motive presence. Same thing, man.

>
>
>
> >Craig: Think of it this way: Pumping blood = Circulation = Cardio-pulmonary system. They are the same thing.
>
> Otmar: Right. They are all the same thing. They are not cyclical. They are best described as gross relationships, either-or, with no in-between. Either you are pumping blood or you are not pumping blood. There is no in-between.

Huh? Who said anything about not pumping blood. My point is that calling the sensory-motive presence is the same thing as sense.

>
> >Craig: If someone were intent on being obstructive, they could pepper a medical student with accusations that cardio-pulmonary-system are not three parts of circulation, and circulation must be three parts (because of medical tradition).
>
>
> Otmar: Accusing me of the intent of malfeasance, by using words like "obstructive", "pepper", and "accusations" constitutes an ad-hominem argument.

I wasn't talking about you. I'm not a medical student. You really should take a close look at what an ad hominem argument is. I'm not attacking you or your authority, I am giving you an analogy to show you why your argument fails.

> And, I grant you the benefit of the doubt that your misinterpretation of what I am saying, your, "cardio-pulmonary-system are not three parts of circulation, and circulation must be three parts (because of medical tradition).",is not intentional.

There is no misunderstanding on my part.

>
> >Craig: If you want to argue about trinities, look at what geometry shows us. See how the three circles can be thought of as radiating out of the center, or how the center can seem to be the intersection of three separate circles. There is no contradiction, there is contradiction, there is both contradiction and no contradiction, there is neither contradiction nor contradiction. The is multisense realism.
>
> Otmar: Your geometric examples can be viewed as 3-parts of the same whole diagram, but do not depict cyclical progressions. Therefore, the Sense in MSR is not absolute.

Cycles can only exist in time. Cycles are not absolute. They depend on a sequence and return, memory, segmentation, etc. All sense sir, ALL sense.

>
> Sense, as The Absolute, as aware-ized energy, CAN BE UNDERSTOOD in terms of action->identity->imbalance->action->identity->imbalance...

No, because -> requires sense already. Sense is more like the space between - and >, or rather, the concatenating impulse which elides that space.

>For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balances,

How can there be a lack of balance without an implicit expectation (sense) of balance first?

> so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained. It is tripartite, progressive, and cyclical, like the other absolutes of time, space, and energy.

The tripartite model is an important step, but it is not the last step. It stalls within the mind's elemental modes and does not get to the absolute. I'm talking about something that goes beyond shapes and dichotomy - the originator of all shapes and all juxtapositions.

Craig

>
> Otmar (I am what I am and I am what I am not)
>