Greetings,  

Btw, this is a very expensive book, but can always be borrowed, without cost or 
for a minimal fee, from your local library's ILL (Interlibrary Loan) system:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlibrary_loan


Marsha 



On Aug 8, 2011, at 4:01 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> This book is worth reading for many reasons; one of them being the beauty and 
> precision of Ms. Adbahari's academic prose...   Here, for example, her 
> explanation of the word 'sense' makes all further references, of which there 
> are many, clearly understandable. 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.2  What is meant by 'sense' in 'sense of self'?  
> 
>   "Now one may wonder at the choice of terms used to describe this deep 
> subjective allegiance to the self's existence.  While I have chosen the term 
> 'sense' to be primary, my usage of other terms such as 'belief', 
> 'assumption', and 'feeling'  is meant to convey that the term 'sense' in this 
> context is more complex than in some other contexts.  The reason for 
> allocating the word 'sense' as primary is that the turn of phrase 'sense of 
> self' is already in vogue and, while lacking ideal precision, it captures the 
> general gist very well.  What, then, do we mean by 'sense' in this context?  
> Let us distinguish it first from that associated with the five sensory 
> organs, as put by the 'Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary' (2006): 
> 'specialized animal function or mechanism (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, 
> or touch)  basically involving a stimulus and a sense organ'.  This is not 
> the notion of sense we are concerned with, for the self, purporting to be a 
> kind of subject rather than obje
 c
> t, does not purport to be the kind of thing that could be detected via any of 
> the five (object-tracking) sensory organs.  The same dictionary offers, 
> however, another definition that is more to the point: 'a definite but often 
> vague awareness or impression <felt a 'sense' of insecurity> <a 'sense' of 
> danger>'.  One can have a sense of danger or insecurity without obvious input 
> from a particular sense organ ---  which well suits the case of the self in 
> question.  The notion thus captures something more cognitive (as opposed to 
> perceptual);  a subjective or conscious impression of some sort.  This notion 
> of 'sense' is moreover not a success-term: to have a sense of X does not 
> imply that X exists.  For example, if one has a sense  ---  or conscious 
> impression  ---  of danger, then there need not be danger that is sensed.  
> This notion of sense, as a conscious impression, will thus apply well to the 
> 'self' whose existence may be under question.
> 
>   "As a kind of 'a definite but often vague awareness or impression', the 
> term 'sense as applied to 'self' has a further advantage.  It manages to 
> convey a subjective experience: that there is, in Nagel's famous phrase, 
> "something it is like", from the first-person perspective, to have or undergo 
> a general conscious impression of X. ..."  
> 
>  (Albahari, Miri, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self ', 
> p.18)
> 
> 


 
___
 

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