Philosophical Speculations

The dual property monism does not run into the "hard problem", but BK would argue that it is not parsimonious and the addition of the property of "matter" is unnecessary. The OP of Idealism includes beingness and awareness. So if it was possible to reasonably deduce awareness fr...

The awareness is not a concept, it's the very experiential and existential fact of you having conscious experience right here and now. The problem with your approach is the same as Dennet's: you are ignoring the fundamental fact of the reality of the direct conscious experience. How relations and i...

The dual property monism does not run into the "hard problem", but BK would argue that it is not parsimonious and the addition of the property of "matter" is unnecessary. In a process version on neutral dual-aspect monism, there is just relating, interacting and perspectives of ...

The key question is: is it possible for the Being to BE, but not to be AWARE? The answer will determine whether the ontology of such Being is idealistic or neutral. Because if it is possible to BE but not to be AWARE, then it's a neutral monism where the awareness becomes an emergent property of th...

Is such uncaused, irreducible 'be-ing' non-aware? If so, at which point does awareness arise and how? Seems like just another iteration of the 'hard problem.' Being is awareness. But without content it is not at the same time. The nonrelational Being is paradoxical from the perspective of a relatio...

You are right. You can not know Being. You can only be it. Awareness must always have a content. Otherwise there would be no awareness. And awareness of awareness boils down to Being in my understanding. Being is the enabler or ontological base of a Awareness-Content relationship. Well, it is possi...

Being I can know for sure. [/i] And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.' What I mean is that Being is a given. Obviously Being is rather than not. Isn it...

Being I can know for sure. [/i] And so how can one know this 'being' absent the awareness of it? I can just as well say that awareness is that which I know for sure, and I'm not sure what is added by naming it 'being.' You are right. You can not know Being. You can only be it. Awareness must always...

E: all just is. Period. And nothing can be said about it. The ontological primal ground (Being) is infinite and eternal and not within space and time. It can not be grasped or described from a perspective of space and time, wherein thinking and language operate. In this metaphysical position mind a...

Eugene I wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:41 pm E is neutral dual property monism. It's not a bad ontology actually.

I totally agree!
Finally I have a word for it. Thank you. And I investigate it in a process philosophy...