Greetings Ham, I would never discourage you from speaking on whatever topic interests you. I didn't mean for you not to address 'witnessing'. (Ohhh, the word was 'note' not 'not'. Sorry. I corrected the mistype in a subsequent post.) Quite the opposite, I do think it is where we can find some common ground. And I have not properly presented Ms. Albahari's case for no-self or her unique introduction of "subjective awareness". I only post the quotes that I do because I think they present an interesting perspective. I cannot help wanting to share some of her points, but that is not the same as presenting her complete,thought-out hypothesis. She offers her theory not as fact, but as starting point for further discussion on 'witnessing/awareness' which she feels does represent the Buddhist Science of Mind, and that has been neglected in the West.
I do deny an autonomous self, but so many times you have written things where I think you are definitely describing my experience. It might be that this "subjective witnessing" that Ms. Albahari presents is exactly where my agreement with what you are presenting aligns with the experiences you are presenting. And it's been informative and a relief to review her investigation. I believe it would be correct, to state that Ms. Albahari presents that the 'self' is built FROM the subjective witnessing experience. She eventually presents that the concept of awareness/witnessing as having an independent reality that is not constructed and therefore not illusory. Yet it is unbounded, which is also a requirement of an autonomous self, so not such a self. RMP's "cutting edge" may well be this subjective witnessing. Yes, that does sound correct! So while Hume, James, Damasio, Dennet and Flanagan may deny all aspects of the self or identifying them with the bundle of thoughts &etc., RMP may be more inline with Ms. Albahari and the Buddhist's "subjective witnessing". I have been thinking about this. How RMP calls static quality all that can be conceptualized which marks a relationship with consciousness. What can that relationship be??? Btw, the Buddhist identifies this experience, experienced directly, as the pre-nibbana experience. This is my second reading, and I think it can quite sustain a third reading. It is quite a book! Anyway, I would be happy to find some common ground with your philosophic point-of-view, partly because I have felt some agreement, and partly because I admire and respect you. But please do not confuse my meager presentation of Ms. Albahari's work with its entirety. I think she is an amazing thinker and has beautifully presented her ideas in this book. I would not want to discredit her very interesting project. Not to worry, while my self has proven to be false, I am witness to the most miraculous patterns the mind can dream up. That's not such a tragic loss. Marsha On Aug 21, 2011, at 3:55 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Dear Marsha -- > > > > On Fri, 8/19/2011 at 5:30 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> quoted Miri > Albahari on How We Construe [that] "The Self Lacks Reality": > > Among the author's conclusions were the following: > > "1. In reality, [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." > > "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." > > "3. 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." > > In your postscript you asked me to please not mention "witnessing" which, of > course is what the conscious self does. > > Despite your persistence in quoting this person, I'm not persuaded by her > arguments. To me, this is speculative rhetoric contrived to refute the > propriety of awareness which (we all know first-hand) is "our own" in order > to conform to a dogma that is accepted on faith. After reading her premises, > I find myself returning to the heading and asking: How, indeed, do we > construe that the Self lacks Reality? In short, it's the conclusion itself > that is "construed". > > Previously you quoted another section of this work addressing what you cited > as "the crux of the issue" in which Ms. Albahari made the case for what > "purports to exist". In that excerpt she says: > > " ...awareness, if it exists, must exist as _completely unconstructed_ by the > content of any perspectivally ownable objects such as thoughts, emotions or > perceptions." > > My response to this is that "perspectivally ownable thoughts, emotions or > perceptions" are by definition the constructive agent we identify as the > Self. The implication throughout Albahari's analysis is that the Self cannot > be "real" because it is ideological > rather than objective (e.g., physical). Yet, who can deny the reality of her > own thoughts and feelings? By what justification are things and events in > process "more real" than the individual entity who experiences them? > > Pirsig himself maintained that conscious experience is "the cutting edge of > reality", which strongly suggests to me that reality wouldn't exist were it > not for this cutting edge. I see no less validity for the locus of awareness > known as the subjective self than for the objective phenomena that comprise > its contents. This is why I regard existence as a dichotomy in which the > contingencies of selfness and otherness, subjectivity and objectivity, are > co-dependent and equally essential realities. > > The bottom line is that I am more impressed with your determination to deny > the self than with the evidence you've offered to support that notion. What > I fail to understand is what your self has done to you that you refuse to > acknowledge it. > > But thanks for at least acknowledging the philosophical significance of this > issue. > > Best regards, > Ham > > 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
