>It doesn't matter if our construal of the spider corresponds to its own
>self-interpretation. The point is, there is something intrinsic to
>spiderness. I'm beginning to come around to the idea that "consciousness"
>should be defined broadly. Perhaps when I say "perception of mentality," I
>should call that "human consciousness."
The something intrinsic are the internal dynamics that make the spiders we examine manifest themselves to our consciousness as spiders with some degree of stability. The forms that spiders take are relatively stable.
As for the consciousness of the spider (or indeed ourselves) I have already I think expressed sympathy with Ted formulae which help to bridge the gap between human consciousness and non-human consciousness. They do this by emphasising where the entity focusses its attention.
> >In the case of the phenomena which lead us to say "brick" or
> >"molecule", we can't make even this guess, although clearly
> >there are some categories of experience more associated with
> >brickness than others. This is what I mean by saying
> >consciousness is what is real. (It is curious that it has
> >been turned into an epiphenomenon, whereas matter, which has
> >less of a reality certificate, is held to underlie it. Given
> >the attributes we assign to both, it would be much likely to
> >suppose that mind produces matter than the other way around.
You really think that?
> >
>
>
> >> >And yet everyone knows what a brick is, and can call to mind
> >> >the shape and weight and texture of one held in the hand.
> >> >
> >> There's an old Zen koan in which two students come upon a stone and begin
> >> arguing over whether it exists in their minds or in the world. They ask
>the
> >> Zen master which one is correct. The master answers by knocking them
>both
> >> in the head with the stone.
Correct in marxist terms too. The ultimately test of reality can only be practice.
>The point of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent; everything is in flux.
Marxist epistemology would also say nothing is permanent and everything is in flux. It would also say everything is connected to everything else (although no to the same degree.)
>The object of meditation is to let the mind come to rest, so we can see this
>clearly and stop attaching to things that have no substance. Then words and
>actions are no problem.
Indeed that sort of mediation is perfect peace and could allow each of us to die contented with the deepest understanding of the transience of forms including our own and that of the present universe. (that is the universe that presents itself to us)
However marxism rejects the contemplative life, and says that we are inevitably part of class society and each have a specific position in that society. Whether we are conscious of it or not we will act roughly speaking under the influence of that position. If we are fully conscious we are play a somewhat larger, although limited part in the development of the larger dynamic of history.
This marxist way is also a way of finding one's soul. Not to do so would seem empty, although conceivably beautiful.
Chris Burford
London