Dear Chuck
I am being a bit of a Stanley Fish (logical monster) when I say that > Nothing in the mash is prior to consciousness as an event in consciousness.<
I am happy to speculate that the events might have a history ( I have had such lumps in previous mash-ups) and I am happy to speculate that like happens with lovers, there is a history hidden to me (I know my be-loved as my be-loved - she, for me, is the events we share in common, or else I corrupt the present with a history of my own invention).
PS - I am more than happy with my present.
Yes - I agree with your assertion that consciousness is inherently abstract.
cheers
keith
>>> Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> 02/10/09 11:40 PM >>>
On Oct 1, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Keith Russell wrote:
> Nothing in the mash is prior to consciousness as an event in
> consciousness.
I disagree with this statement if I understand you correctly. What is
prior to consciousness are the neural events that contribute to
consciousness. Some of these may have been in a previous conscious
event but some may not arise to consciousness until that event that
calls on them.
> In order to be conscious, it is always already symbolic. For Kant,
> all propositions are "as if" statements. For consciousness, all
> events are "as if" events.
This I agree with and that is what makes consciousness inherently
abstract. The interesting thing is that consciousness is holistic, a
symbolic blend if you will, that can be mentally aggregated or
disaggregated; one can build the blend or deconstruct it; also-one can
focus on a window within an image of a building in a landscape even as
one remains somehow conscious (aware) of the whole. Unconscious
information can be recalled from consciousness it seems.
Chuck
|