You may say so, though it is not either entirely wrong or right and stands somewhere in between.
But, i neither mind nor help it, if my version is close to what some others have been already said.
Though, i did not constructed my version keeping Biblical God in mind. It just happened later but it does not bother me either.
Agreed. That is why i appreciate it.
I cannot say so.
James, as i see it, there is not much difference between a presumption and a declared definition.
In philosophy or in an ontology, the real test comes later, at the stage of comparing predictions with realities.
Until then, all are premises, if we keep highly intellectual and complex language aside.
Yes.
But, barring the basic premise or declared definition. Because, there is no way by which philosophy can verify it at that stage.
Agreed.
But, i would like to put two more definitions forth in this context-
A superstition is imposing an imaginary entity and considering it as a fact without verifying it to complete the sequence of the logic.
So, if this imaginary entity is not taken as a fact but assumption only, then it is premise or declared definition.
Well, That is the bottom of the difference of the perception between yours and mine. This issue can be addressed in many ways.
James, once again, with due respect------
First of all, let me make it clear that my definition of the consciousness is different from the Bibical God in many ways as it is merely an aware originator and witness of the will but not any Humanized sort of God with two legs and hands as people imagine in general. Though, i accept the that divine entities exist in realty but they are not creators of the existence but managers only.
The methodology of the metaphysics is different from remaining philosophy. It is a very subtle issue, thus, cannot be constructed in one go or a straight line. It have to travel back and forth many times, as done by the past scholars in order to avoid any derailment and be as close as reality as possible.
It does not start from the premise or declared definition, but, from the observation what it has in hand. It goes deep in the observation, even beyond from what is visible to the eyes and tries to find out some facts (not premises). Then, it moves backwards to follow the trail by deducing like analytical philosophy and try to see what it can come up with. Then again, it takes that deduced cogitations as basic premises and try to construct ontology upon it. Here, any presumption or any deviation from the logic is not allowed and the ontological run should be continued up to that very stage, from where it has taken the initial observation. Now, both of ontological and observational findings have to matched exactly. If it is so, then both initial observation (basic premises) and ontology is true, otherwise not. And, once again, it has to check its observations and find out where the fault is. This is not a one time phenomena but has to be repeated again and again, unless and until, ontological constructs do not match exactly with observational findings.
James, i think that is more than clear and that is the difference between your perception and mine about the construction of a metaphysical ontology. Perhaps, it looks a bit unusual but that is more reliable way.
And, that is what i am indicating again and again in the context of RM. RM is fine and perfect but it is a merely a tool to construct an ontology, not an ontology itself. It would give you back what you would pour in it, nothing more, and nothing less. It is a formula and its result depends on where are you applying it.
It is a vehicle, not a driver, thus, the driver must be aware of the starting point and that destination. Yes, a vehicle can carry the driver successfully but someone has to drive it as it cannot run on its own. That is the crux of the issue.
James, when i am including consciousness in what is, what it is with will, then i am neither assuming it nor it is merely a declared definition, but a fact. Because, i know that it is a reality and different from will. And, any ontology cannot run successfully till the end without considering it as a basic premise.
That is why JSSRM is perfect while explaining Non-live or physical matter because that is made of pure affectance, not consciousness. But, JSSRM would run into trouble when it comes to Live-matter like humans and Spiritual entities, because, they all have a tiny part of consciousness at the center, and affectance wraps around it.
That is how that amalagmation of the two becomes alive, because now it has its own source of will and becomes Self-Valuing. That is why it struggles to survive and always ready to take on the ambient. While, Non-live matter is only reluctant to change, not self-valuing as it does not care about itself.
James, i know that sometimes people (i am not including you) see me as a hardcore superstitious theist, who use to live in his own fantasy and tends to put forth bizarre explanations, but, i am not a bigot.
I know what I know, and I also know that I do not know all, but I also know what I do not know.
This is to say that i am well aware of my capabilities and knowledge and those limitations also. My knowledge may be limited but i am sure of that.
with love.
sanjay