Mary, Steve, DMB --
On 2/12/10 Mary said to Steve:
If we can agree that Western Civilization is built on the idea of the self
as supreme and eternal; that all monotheisms are based on that, then it
seems pretty clear to me that a religious fundamentalist is simply someone
who has taken this notion to its logical conclusion.
DMB replied:
That's how James saw it. In the essay titled "Does Consciousness Exist"
he says, basically, that the Cartesian subject is a modern, quasi-secular
version of the christian soul. (You might be surprised to learn how
religious
the modern philosophers were. Newton was way into alchemy and
otherwise thought physics was the study of God's laws, for example,
and Descartes needed God to escape his solipsism.) In that essay James
denies that there is any such substance or entity. Instead, he says,
consciousness is not a thing or an ontological reality but rather a
function
within experience.
I seriously doubt you will find general agreement on the notion that a
"supreme
and eternal self" is the foundation of Western Civilization. At least, this
is not at all what America's founding fathers believed. Their belief was
based
on the inherent (God-given) freedom of the individual. They drafted a
Constitution
that respected the rights of the individual as the "free agent" of their new
republic.
And they limited the power of Government to ensure the individual's right to
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It is fascinating how anti-theists label precepts to demean subjectivity, as
if
proprietary consciousness was a "religious myth". David paraphrases
William James as saying that "the Cartesian subject is a modern,
quasi-secular
version of the Christian soul." Such profound insight!
Of course what the Sophists called "the self", is what Christians called
"the soul",
and what the philosophers still call "the subject". That the subject is
neither a "thing"
nor an "ontological reality" doesn't invalidate the knowing self. James
realized this,
but apparently David won't allow HIM-self to acknowledge it.
And what, pray tell, is "a function of experience" that is not aware to the
subject
of that experience? Or is Experience another one of those Pirsigian
entities,
like Intellect and Quality, that resides in some etherial level beyond
individual
consciousness?
Essentially curious,
Ham
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/
