Hello again Ham,
If you will forgive me for quoting from Miri Albahari's book, here's the crux of the issue: "... Awareness purports to exist as a witnessing presence that is unified, unbroken and yet elusive to direct observation. As something whose phenomenology purports to be unborrowed from objects of consciousness, awareness, if it exists, must exist as _completely unconstructed_ by the content of any perspectivally ownable objects such as thoughts, emotions or perceptions. If _apparent_ awareness, perhaps by virtue of one or more of its defining features (that form part of its content or 'aboutness'), turned out to owe its existence to such object-content rather than to (unconstructed) _awareness itself_, then that would render awareness constructed and illusory and hence laking in independent reality..." There! I have mentioned before that I can identify with some of your statements about 'self', mainly because of this witnessing capacity. To me, freedom, too, is in this kind of presence: witnessing/mindfulness. I cannot identify the flow of "thoughts, emotions or perceptions" with an independent self, but what of this witnessing experience? What of this intimate awareness? - But this book is dense and complex, with lots to think about, and I will need to read it again, but it seems to be on the right trail. I hope you are well. Marsha On Jul 21, 2011, at 2:22 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Hi Ham, > > This is the most interesting topic. It's a constant question, but I have > not found an answer. > > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:28 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > >> >> Dear Marsha -- >> >> On Tuesday, July 19, you said to Joe: >> >>> I have been puzzling over the experience of subjective >>> consciousness - awareness. It is experience but I cannot >>> observe it, like an eye cannot see itself. It seems not to >>> be permanent and seems to control nothing. It witnesses. >>> On investigation this is NOT an autonomous self. But >>> it is experience and yet not an object of knowledge. >> >> Did you not read Dave Thomas's post recounting a recent TV appearance of the >> Dalai Lama? >> >> [David on 7/18]: >>> I once paraphrased to Marsha that I saw him in a TV clip snap >>> at a questioner who asked him some question about the Buddhist >>> principle of "no-self."I said, because I did not have access to the >>> clip, He said something like (and this really pissed her off), >>> "If you have no self, who is it that is going to change?" >> >> Ham: >> You don't observe "the experience of subjective awareness" because it's what >> you ARE. > > Marsha: > The question is am I an 'autonomous' self. There certainly is experience of > awareness, but that seems to be just a pattern that occasionally occurs > within consciousness awareness. > > >> Ham: >> Like it or not, you are a conscious subject, and subjects can't observe or >> "witness" themselves as objects. > > Marsha: > There is conscious awareness, and there sometimes is a 'sense of self' that > occurs, but that is not proof that the 'sense of self' is a real 'autonomous > self.' As you admit there is not way the witnessing becomes the object of > observation. > > >> Ham: >> The subjective self and its conscious stream of passing experiences is >> "permanent" only as long as the being of that self is alive. > > Marsha: > There is no way to know what goes on before birth or after death. And there > are plenty of times when I am not aware of a 'sense of self'. In what way > can it be permanent when it often isn't there. This 'sense of self 'seems > more a pattern that sometimes occur within consciousness. > > >> Ham: >> Now, you can say that your self is not "real" or is only "interconnected >> patterns", does not "exist" in the sense that objects exist, and cannot be >> directly observed in the sense that objects are observed. Nonetheless, if >> Marsha's self were removed, Marsha and her reality would disappear. > > Marsha: > I am questioning your use of "autonomous" self, and you are begging the > question here by assuming "Marsha's self" exists to be removed or disappear. > > >> Ham: >> I'm curious as to what "investigation" has convinced you that your self is >> not autonomous. How does one go about investigating herself? Brain >> scanning? Hypnosis? Psychotherapy? And if, as the Dalai Lama suggested, >> you have no self, who or what is it that makes Marsha's choices and >> preferences? Quality patterns? DQ? Collective consciiousness? > > Marsha: > Meditation and mindfulness are the tools I use to investigate > mind/consciousness. My experiences are co-dependent on many conditions > (patterns), conscious awareness may be one of those conditions. I do not > have the exact quote or context for the Dalai Lama statements, so I cannot > guess what he meant. But everyone, even the Dalai Lama accepts the > conventional use of the term self. The question is what is behind that > convention? That's my interest. And your assumptions are not evidence. > > >> Ham: >> Do you really believe yourself to be subservient to the reality you create, >> Marsha? > > Marsha: > No. I would use the word interconnected rather than subservient. > > > >> Ham: >> Or are you still puzzling it out? I would like to believe you KNOW you are >> a real person with a personna and a self of your own, just like the rest of >> us. But your proclaimed "self-denial" has me confused. > > Marsha: > I am a conventionally real person. I have never denied this conventional > 'sense of self.' But isn't metaphysics a search beyond the conventional? > > You have not answered either of my questions, and I do not find any evidence > of an autonomous self. > > > >> >> Please restore my confidence, Marsha. >> >> Best wishes, >> Ham >> > > > Thank you. > > > 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
