[Ham] You can call epistemological theory "wishful thinking" and "supernatural", but you won't find an adequate physiological definition for the Self in the annals of neurophysics or psychology.
[Krimel] Let's be precise. I said your epistemological theory is "wishful thinking" and "supernatural." If there actually was an adequate definition for the Self of any kind we wouldn't be having this conversation. "Physiology" wasn't even part of the conversation until about 300 years ago. Your brand of epistemological theorizing has had the floor for the past 2,000 years. All I saying is what do the guys with the expensive toys think? You have to be able to ask serious questions to play with fMRI machines. As a bonus you get interesting answers and interesting disagreements. In the absence of the possibility of a definitive my money is on refined empiricism; checking it out, messing with it and seeing what happens. [Ham] I make no claim to "explain" it; I simply want to establish the principles that are fundamental to human awareness. We both agree that subjective awareness is not a physical thing, which means that it can't be objectively observed, localized or quantified. Yet it is essential for the appearance of an objective reality. [Krimel] First I let me make this clear: there is no empirical evidence that a Mind, subjective awareness, the soul, whatever you want to call it, can exist in the absence of a physical body. Any talk of such a thing or entity or even process must be based on some other kind of evidence. [Ham] Neurologist Richard Schain has summed up the paradox of selfness in his appeal for a "radical metaphysics": "'Truth is subjectivity' means that the essential feature in the life of an individual is his valuation of his interior self, i.e. his subjective self. There is no greater tragedy than the failure of an individual to realize this value. What hinders this development, however, is the modern view that there is no such thing as the self, that there is only a complex arrangement of synapses and neurons in the brain, giving rise to the illusion of self. Without a belief in the metaphysical self, humans are at the mercy of their environment, which in the present age fares little for the development of an interior self. Only a radical metaphysics will save the individual from drowning in the swamps of the materialist dogmas of contemporary society. There is a pressing necessity for metaphysics for any individual in today's world who has respect for himself as an independent being." [Krimel] This is just hopelessly confused from the outset; "...What hinders this development, however, is the modern view that there is no such thing as the self..." What exactly in the modern view is hindering the Self? I just want to say that whatever it is, it is doing a seriously crappy job. The self help industry is multi-billion dollar affair. Self, Us, We, People, Xtra, ET, Cosmo... We are surrounded by visions of our Selves and possible Selves. Adam Curtis did a series called the Century of the Self. My God, man, do you mean something is actually hindering all this? " Without a belief in the metaphysical self, humans are at the mercy of their environment, which in the present age fares little for the development of an interior self." Again where has this guy been living? There are about 10 Christian TV channels on my cable box. Eckhart Tolle is on Oprah, who spawned Dr. Phil to replace Dr. Brothers. There's the Pope and the Dalia Lama. There is even the Blue Collar Comedy Tour offering self development of a sort. But let's go back to the beginning, :... the essential feature in the life of an individual is his valuation of his interior self." No one says this unless they are about to tell me the "right" way to value my interior self. This guy seems to be suffering from a fear that people are not taking seriously his idea of what their Selves ought to be. Which I think is exactly what you have in mind. [Ham] That may be what a "culture" is, but culture is not mind or apprehension. You avoid saying what mind is while speaking of the "intellectual level" as a "collection of ideas." The mind of the knower isn't an accumulation of borrowed knowledge. All of the ideas that society holds must originate with some individual. An idea is not pre-formed as a bit of knowledge that can be extracted from an intellectual pool. It is the product of a thinking human being. [Krimel] Yes, I see the "intellectual level" as a "collection of ideas." I see myself and most of the people I know as collectors of ideas. We begin absorbing them at birth. We bathe in a common pool of knowledge that is thousands of years old. We can drink our fill from it and we will never diminish it. Some will contribute to the collection; clarifying murky shallows and sending beacons of light into dark trenches. After all isn't part of realizing ones interior value contributing back to the common source. > [Krimel] > I find all of the terms you make up pretentious. They provide > an illusion of clarity without actually make any sense. I think it > comes from your insistence that philosophy is just the making > of definitions and arranging them into patterns that feel good. [Ham] Where have I insisted that philosophy is just definitions and "feel good" patterns? To the contrary, I continue to maintain that it's concepts, not words, that are the basis of philosophical thinking. [Krimel] Ham, please words ARE concepts and concepts ARE words; at least insofar as we chose to communicate rather than ruminate. [Ham] And I'm asking you to define (not explain) what you think Mind is. If you cannot define the mind, I don't see how you can even begin to explain the dynamics of selfness and conscious awareness. My question to you was: Is what you feel and apprehend unique to you or is it an integral part of the objective universe that surrounds you [Krimel] I have never actually heard a good definition of Mind and for that reason generally avoid the term. I think the behaviorists showed great wisdom in that. Like them I would say that little is to be gained from speculation or turning back to ancient dogmas. But yes I think my personal history is personal and unique to me but I also think it is integrated into the universe that surrounds me. How is that an either/or question? [Ham] I made no such assertion. What I said was "the Self is not the metabolic, digestive, respirational, or endocrinal processes that go on in my body." I didn't say that one can be aware in the absence of a body or its functions. The very term "being-aware" implies a dichotomy of two mutually dependent contingencies. Like everything in existence the human being is a differentiated entity. [Krimel] Your linguistic problems are your own but as I have said I think the Self is a Mind/Body. Make of that what you will. [Ham] I suppose I'm not to regard "current instantiation of a process" as pretentious language designed to cover up the gaps in your explanation or, heaven forbid, that it might involve "supernatural" phenomena. [Krimel] Pretentious? But not obfuscatory. I think at least in this instance my language is precise and isn't the point to eliminate gaps and misunderstanding. Whatever I meant I can assure you is had nothing to do with the "supernatural". > [Krimel] > I agree that we disagree [Ham] Sorry to hear that, Krimel. I think your insistence on a physiological Self demeans your intellectual potential. But I suspect it is largely due to the influence of RMP. [Krimel] I think my intellectual potential is doing better than some might have predicted. But thanks for your concern. Despite what the Aw Gis say, Pirsig has had a profound effect on my thinking and I owe him a debt of thanks. Very perceptive of you, not everyone picks up on that. 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/
