On Apr 17, 2011, at 4:53 AM, Carl Thames wrote: > > >> Hi Dan, >> >> Then you changed the subject, because I was speaking of the illusion >> of the ME, the "Cartesian Me" having 'freewill" and making "choices." >> I will expand my former statement, the preferences of the biological static >> patterns of value are further shaped by social static patterns of value and >> intellectual static patterns of value. And with these preferences WE build >> stories of how and why and when and where and with whom, which create >> pleasure and pain. Stories. >> >> Why did you introduce "sexual selection" quote? What kind of access do >> we have to the biological preferences besides the obvious signals? We >> have more control over the social and Intellectual patterns because they >> are so often present through conceptualization and language. Anyway, >> it seems to me that most of the discussion is defending the type of choices >> made by a "Cartesian Me", and that is story-telling, illusion. But maybe I >> am wrong, and that is causing the confusion. And yes, understanding >> these preferences intellectually is better than letting them run wild, but >> let's make sure we understand that that "Cartesian Me" is illusion. And I >> am not sure we've done that. >> >> Marsha > > I think I understand where you're going with this Marsha, and I agree with > you. The problem, as I see it, is with deCarte. He assigns the value, "I > think, therefore I am" as a static quality. This was based on an > unsupportable assumption. His logic was, "God exists. I know that God > exists. In order to know that God exists, I must be thinking. In order to > think, I must exist, therefore, 'cogito, ergo sum.'" The problem here is > obvious to me. There is no way to 'prove' that God exists, therefore there > is no way to "prove" that he was thinking. He could have been a walnut > hanging from a tree having that thought. There is no way to 'prove' any type > of thought as being independent, or even non-independent for that matter. > > I personally think that the Cartesian Me is most certainly an illusion, based > on a collection of cultural assumptions. We define ourselves as we were > either taught to do so, or developed within a cultural context. I cannot see > myself as a typical Chinese man, because I don't know how to do that. I do > have basic male attributes, but that's where the similarity ends. The rest > is a collection of ego defenses, assumptions, and learned behavior. Sexual > attraction falls into the latter, for the most part. I have felt the "spark" > that some speak of when mating, but that's not always the determining factor. > In fact, I would be willing to bet that it's rarely the determining factor. > I have felt it, then discovered that the woman involved was not someone I > wanted to be involved with, for whatever reason, and moved on. If we had no > choice in the matter, that wouldn't have happened, would it? Having said > that, I am also aware that we have a biological imperitive to reproduce. Alcohol has done more than anything to get us past our cultural obstacles and seeing to it that reproduction occurs. <G> > > Having introduced a variable, (alcohol) might seems frivolous to the > discussion, but it's really not. The point to it is to ask just how thin the > veneer of our ego really is? Is the veneer the Cartesian Me, or is the basic > animal reproduction instinct the reality here? > > Carl
Hello Carl, I'm not sure how much can be attributed directly to Descartes. This sense of self seems to be universal, but, none the less, a cause of much confusion. Personally, I think Dan's use of the word 'preference' is a better one than 'choice,' and these preferences seem to be interconnected across levels and weighted differently in each event. They are mostly outside control, but what the Cartesian Me does is build a story with ME as the controlling center. This story-telling often projects MY choice, MY judgement, MY opinion or MY conclusion onto a neutral situation causing conflict: ME, NOT ME, taking credit, assigning blame. The heart of the matter seems to get lost to the protection of the story-telling ego. All the freewill and 'having choices' talk is mostly story-telling after the fact or projected onto some future. It's illusion. Your questions are good, but can only be asked if one is not caught up in the story-telling. How can one be made aware of the patterns without being possessed them? Thanks for responding. Marsha ___ 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
