I'll give it a try. I am more into Buddhist Analysis. Chapter 1: How? Chapter 2: Why? Chapter 3: When? Chafer 4: Where? Conclusions: What? Epilogue: Wazzap?
Mark On Aug 8, 2011, at 1:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
