[Ham] [The problem indeed lies in regarding the Self as a "thing" or an "existent", But the solution is not to regard it as "a process" but as subjective sensibility which is prior to objective events in process.]
[Krimel] I don't see how calling it "Subjective Sensibility" solves anything. It sounds like a proper noun to me. Categorically speaking that's a thing. You can't use the name game to make it go away. So categorically speaking I'll stick with process which is a set of relationships. [Ham] [Each of us is a different point of view. The difference is in time, space, and the values perceived... [Krimel] It is hardly a mystery that each individual has a different self. The body part of the self is a complex chemical soup. Each of us produces a slightly different body order. We should expect to see individual differences in the chemistry of the nervous system as well. And then you have the problem of each self occupying different physical space. But each self is also capable for viewing itself from different points of view. It can place itself in different times and spaces. It can imagine perceiving different values. It is able to transcend itself. [Ham] ... Is it a "top down" fallacy to consider the self as the PoV agent?] [Krimel] Not if you see that the self constructs itself from the bottom up. [Ham] [You are the KNOWER of reality as an accumulation of patterns and processes. This knowledge is an intellectual construct of your value sensibility.] [Krimel] I don't know that my accumulated patterns could be considered reality, even by me. I have found that my memory is riddled with encoding errors and often is at odds with the recollection of others. But it is a conceptual construct. I think value sensibility is much more physiological like our revulsion to excrement and fear of blood. But if you want to get all reductionist, sensation comes prior to value sensibility. [Ham] [This is the "accumulation" of processes, not the knowing Self.] [Krimel] You seem to be talking about what some would call executive function. I think Buddhists call it the watcher. As I have said I think this is a complex pattern that results from an enormous amount of instantaneous parallel processing. [Ham] Or, to sum it up, the illusion is not the sensible Self but the existence which the Self invents from Value and accepts as real. . Too much pie? [Krimel] Our conceptual patterns are our construction but they are rooted in our senses. The senses are our interface with the physical world. We transduce physical energy into patterns of electro-chemical interactions. We encode the physical. Our concepts and understanding are always dependant on sensory confirmation. As I have said illusions are not false they are just particular ways of organizing sense data. We are capable of having multiple views and understandings of our selves. It is our capacity to shift point of view that makes us unique. And we can see it developing in our young. One of the things Piaget noted about children between 2 and 6 is that early on they do not understand what he called "conservation". He showed them two glasses with the same amount of water in them and then poured water from one of the glasses into a taller glass. The younger children said the tall glass had more water in it. They made the same kind of errors with quantity, length and mass. Piaget explained these errors saying that the children based their judgment on a single conceptual dimension of the problem and were unable to integrate other dimensions. By five and six children have no problem solving these problems. Not only are we wired to build conceptual structures from birth; we get better at it as we mature. As I said basic values are there at birth: we want to smell our mother and drink from her breasts. We want to feel her arms around us and trust in her love. If you insist on using your terms then Self does not invent values, but values invent the Self. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
