Well Ham,  It's four days later, and I'm just starting to catch up.  So no
apology necessary!

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> John, I gave you an inaccessible address for my essay, Becoming Aware.
>  Tack an 'htm' in place of the 'net' at the end.
>
> In other words, www.essentialism.net/becomeaware.htm should work.
>

"Should".  Well, it does on one level, but I dunno on the other.  The link
took me somewhere, but I need clarification, right off the top.  Hope you
don't mind me divining in and tearing apart...



Conscious beings have a private realm in which all sorts of inner events
occur that are not directly observable by others.


the tSee?  Right there.  I'm not sure, but I've got lots of questions.  For
is not everything that is felt and experienced by "me", communicated in some
fashion -albeit ambigously and confusedly - to others?  That is, my
recognized being, has it's meaning and definition only to these related
others.  And thus any felt aspect of self-being, is mirrored somehow upon
our aspects, in ways we don't intend or even fully understand.  We are
related in ways we can't fully imagine or intellectualize.

So right off, I don't agree.

When you think, feel, desire, judge, or plan, it is a proprietary experience
that represents your individual point of view.

ok, that I do agree.  But it's a bit tautological, eh?  Whatever "I" feel
represents "me" and my point of view.  Obviously.  But that presupposes our
self-image, our sense of who "me" is and how that's been derived and created
in a relativistic cosmos.  It just assumes, instead of sticking to the
analysis of where or how that self arises.  I used to think of these as
"meta problems" because it's easy to get caught in that ole hall of mirrors
of multiple levels when you're thinking upon self and being.

This was part of that Borges scholar's point, btw, in analyzing Jorge's
adaptation of El Mapa de Royce, his answer to FH Bradley and Aristotle's
objections to handling these things mentally - infinity as a mathematical
conceptualization as opposed to its rhetorical considerations -  but sorry.
 I digress.  Disagreement is one thing, digression another.  Disagreeable
digression takes it to a whole worse level!


It occurs in a private space that is your own subjective realm.  In
deference to the majestic poetry of John Donne, insofar as experience is
concerned, it must be said that *every* man is an island.
Plllbbbttttt--- to you and the solipsistic horse you rode in on.  Me and
John D and that guy marooned on an island but with a whole world of
relationships in his head, all will testify that empirical evidence weighs
heavily against that notion.  If any man is completely a-social, then I (or
you) simply have no knowledge of him, and for all practical purposes he does
not exist.




>
> Sorry about the error.  (It was way past my bedtime.)
>
> --Ham
>
>
All is forgiven.  Take your time.  Answer me carefully.  I'll wait
patiently.  I've got all night, I'm home, home on the ridge.  Sigh.

gonna build a fire and Phil-ah-sophize tonite baby!  I've got the house to
myself and plenty of firewood, and Lu hasn't cut off the broadband yet!

I will read the rest of your missive, and get back to you.

John at home
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

Reply via email to