On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Marsha wrote:
Greetings Ham, How about if I concede a bit. I might consider there is individual experience/existing, but it is not anything like an independent, controlling self who is in-charge of its experiences. It would be more like seeing would be unique from your individual eyes and point-of-view, and different then the experience of seeing from my individual eyes and point-of-view. But still no self. This is always where I want to agree with you. So that's no to the 'I', but yes to the individual. What would you say about this?
I would say that 'self' is undeniably the seat of consciousness. As such it is the locus of awareness, experience, knowledge, sensibility, and every other aspect of the individual's relation to the world. The self is, as you say, a "point-of-view". That view is unique to each individual self.
[John injects]:
What means this "biologically bound"? "Binding" seems disparaging to me, as if poor, poor intellect... TRAPPED in this filthy biological shell.
John is right. To describe the individual self as a "patterned piece" of nature, quality, intellect, or anything else is a misconception. The individuality of conscious awareness is as "absolute" as any division can be. We each exist as a POV; it is our valuistic connection with the essential Source.
You have an aversion to the term "I", which is often equated with "ego" and has a deprecatory inference. I think this is why you have adapted the Buddhistic notion of 'no-self'. But, Marsha, if all consciousness is proprietary to the individual self, and we are all self-aware, then "I" is how we identify that self. This is not to deny the influence of society and language on the thinking individual, or the dependence on organic beingness for our existence. Rather, it's a denial that the self is biological, social, or even experiential in nature. The "essence" of selfness is proprietary awareness, or what I call "sensibility".
The reason I put so much stress on that definition is that we cannot logically be "free agents" of Value if we are bound to physical reality or the so-called "collective consciousness". Value-sensibility is independent of the "otherness" it experiences and intellectualizes. Epistemologically the self MUST be independent of the phenomenal world in order to serve as the measure of Value in existence.
Your admission of this truth is not a "concession" to me, Marsha. It's an important first step to understanding that without a self there is no realization . . . which means no awareness of otherness, no appreciation of Quality/Value or Morality, and no experience of things in process. Stir that into your metaphysical stew and see if it doesn't improve the flavor.
Essentially yours, 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/md/archives.html
