Hey Craig, thanks for the feedback. Please refer to below:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 5:10:39 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>> The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
>> complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
>> be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
>> The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
>> affective rather than intellectual. 
>> What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
>> sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
>> Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it 
>> forms the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the 
>> organization and care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as 
>> fear, greed, love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they 
>> constitute protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the 
>> space-time context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", 
>> representing this "centre", represents the physical body, and this 
>> representation is responsible for the identification which constitutes 
>> bondage. 
>> This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
>> self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
>> capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
>> emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
>> responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
>> entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
>> noumenality which is all that it is.
>> It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which 
>> is attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
>> responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
>> action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
>> term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
>> however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
>> is assigned to its agency.
>> It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
>> object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
>> so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
>> be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
>> whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
> Nice post. Why can't is-ness be the reconciliation of both object and 
> subject instead though? Not an absence, but the presence of the sense of 
> absence from which all implicit and explicit experience is appreciated in 
> solitude/solace/peace. The vocable "I" may be ignorant of its agency, but 
> the noumenal privacy which dreams the I may not be ignorant, and it may not 
> be fundamentally different from the representations of itself that it does 
> experience. Greater, certainly, but not alienated from it absolutely. We 
> need not doubt our own agency, even if the doubter is not identical in 
> every way to the agency that it doubts. Human consciousness is multivalent 
> and only semi-unanamous, but that doesn't mean that awareness itself is 
> similarly fragmented split off from itself. Volition is not an illusion, it 
> just has incomplete access to knowledge of itself. The is-ness of the 
> objective world would not be very convincing if everyone walked around as 
> omniscient immortals.
> First of all, let me say that I am no fan of determinism, even when it is 
clothed up in the fancy reasoning that Bruno provides. I do believe in 
irreducible agency and volition, and I don't think (a la John Clark) that 
all states of affairs can be exhausted by simple repetition of double sided 
tautologies... nature proves amply that binary thinking is bad thinking, 
and I always hate (but also love, because John is such a good reasoner, 
given his assumptions) to see arguments that get cashed out in terms of a 
basic set of binary values.I think there are more choices than 
random/determinate, but we probably can't distinguish or frame them, just 
like prehistoric planaria couldn't distinguish between more/less light.  I 
think the thing I'm trying to say is that the reconciliation of subject and 
object is something like when you bring together the picture of something 
and its negative... when you superimpose those things you get 'nothing'... 
now, that doesn't necessarily mean a blank or an absence... actually, that 
reconciliation is the biggest fullness of plenum you can conceive, because 
you have brought two (by definition) contradictories together that they add 
up precisely to 'no thing' -- no distinguishable thing, anyway, the thing 
you are left with is figure and background all merged into one, and that is 
what we are, but then again, I'm already conceptualizing and therefore 
making an object of the experience, so it is once again subject to the 
dialectical subject/object figure/ground eternal dance we are all caught up 
in. As soon as you claim "a presence of the sense of absence" you've 
already made a presence that can be ignored, accepted, or otherwise argued 
about. And I know volition is not an illusion. I am quite certain of it 
having tried to live my life as a determinist for many periods, and always 
finding that inner tension of "no, you can do something different now, if 
you so desire"... so many intuitions about the first person perspective are 
simply unamenable to the third person proof structure that Bruno seems to 
prefer, even though I also know that at some deep level he knows exactly 
what I am talking about, but it would be cashed out in terms of talk about 
Lobian machines and (relatively)self-consistent theorem provers.. intuition 
in these schemes tends to be a crutch or an unavoidable consequence of 
being a machine embedded in a larger mathematical space ... thing is, as I 
was trying to get to in my last post, we are that very space of 
possibilities itself...

> I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is 
>> determined. 
> Who could determine anything other than you/us/awareness?
Precisely, this is the question. Who is the determiner? This is the 
question we must always ask ourselves. And I don't think we will get 
answers by asking this, but we will move along a path... where it leads, I 
don't know, but I do know that asking this very question obstinately and 
constantly is the only way we will make any kind of progress.  

>> Nor could I ever be identified with anything objective, and "an I" is a 
>> contradiction in terms. I am no "thing" whatever, not even "is-ness." 
> I don't know about that. I am speaking to you know through these objective 
> characters on your objective screen. Why make yourself a nothing? Nothing 
> is what is not even "is-ness". Nothing is an idea that something has about 
> the absence of everything. But there is no such thing as the absence of 
> everything. There can be no "is-not-ness". In my estimation, you are the 
> experience of every Homo sapien that has ever lived, every cell and 
> molecule that has ever been, every mind who has every contributed to 
> civilization, etc., plus you are an unrepeatable instantiation of pure 
> uniqueness - a tendril extending from the Absolute improbability of 
> awareness itself (primordial pansensitivity).
> Thanks,
> Craig
> It seems as though you think nothing to be a bad thing, or somehow 
undignified or unbefitting of "ourselves"... but when you really do a good 
dose of introspection combined with an understand that 'nothing' need not 
necessarily mean 'absolute absence' but might also mean 'perpetual 
presence'...I totally understand your metaphor of the "unrepeatable 
instantiation of pure uniqueness"... but who is it who knows this? who 
knows it is an unrepeatable instantiation? It can't just be a given person, 
say Dan or Craig, it is a knowledge built into the universe... this is 
where our identity lies, and not just at a local level, but really at a 
universal level. I think there is such a thing as the absence of 
everything, and it is precisely this... the world of illusion we find 
ourselves in.... if there were not an ultimate absence, if there were an 
actual real presence, everything in the universe would have to be subsumed 
under it and it would be very obvious... I think we frequently take 
absences for presences, and this is part of the delusion that we need to 
transcend in order to get a little (happiness?) ...no probably not, just 
peace, I guess. 

Sorry about misinterpreting you (because I'm sure I have at some point, 
being just one more lens of an aperture whose nature I don't understand) 
but I hope I make at least a little bit of sense about these very weighty 
(to me)issues. My intuition tells me, though, that we are more similar that 
we would even imagine is possible. I'lll leave it at that.  


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to