Chapter: How Do We Construe 'The Self Lacks Reality'? ...
"... The following schema provides a threefold way of thinking about the scenario of _self as constructed and illusory_. It will be useful to reflect upon this schema when looking at evidence from Western philosophers who deny reality to the self. "1. Through various roles (e.g., as thinker of thoughts, owner of experiences, initiator of action), we take ourselves (_qua_ self) to be a conscious subject-entity, which is ontologically separate from, hence unconstructed by, thoughts, perception and other experiences. In reality, such a self is not ontologically separate from the thoughts (etc.), but is the content of an idea that is created, at least in part, by our thoughts, perceptions and so forth. Thus the self does not precede or create the thoughts (etc.); rather our thoughts (etc.) go towards creating the idea of it. In this way, the fundamental duality between a thinking, perceiving, bounded subject on one side and its apprehended objects, thoughts and ideas on the other is constructed and hence illusory. This has bearing on the various roles and aspects as they are applied to self. "2. We take our thoughts (etc.) to be owned --- perspectivally and personally --- by a self, when in reality they are not owned by such a self. The idea that we, the self, own our thoughts and perceptions (etc.) is caused at least in part by the edifice of thought and perceptions (etc.) that comprises the sense of self, rather than by a thought-independent owner, the self. Similar considerations apply for other roles such as actor and thinker. We take the self to be the initiator of actions and thinker of thoughts. In reality, there is no self playing these roles; 'actor' and 'thinker' are, at least in part a fictitious invention _of_ the thoughts (etc.). Neither is there a _bounded_ witness-self who knows the experiences (although Buddhism construes witnessing to be real enough). "3. We take ourselves to be a bounded, unbroken and invariable, unconstructed entity, which, through various roles, _unifies_ our thoughts and experiences as belonging to and issuing from _it_. In reality, there is no such self, but only a flux of thought and perception along with mental faculties such as memory and imagination. The Buddhist account also includes witnessing, which is construed as unbroken and invariable, a source of the apparent unity. But importantly, there is no room in this picture, whether painted by East or West, for an entity described as 'the self' that serves to unify the thoughts. If there is a genuine principle of unity, then this principle is not grounded in the self-entity." (Albahari, Miri, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self ', pp.131-132) p.s. The philosophers, who deny the self, that Ms. Albahari goes on to are the Hume, James, Damasio, Dennet and Flanagan. Sooooo interesting. p.p.s. Ham, if you've read this, please not the mention of witnessing. This is where I think we can find common ground. I think, but maybe I'm wrong. ___ 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
