Greetings, Mark [Marsha mentioned] --
Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever
else is stuck in this two dimensional web,
Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy
works. Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and
consider what we can logically create.
When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a
self-referential circle. He defines emotions as indefinable.
Why are they indefinable? Because they are emotions!
I am not sure how far this logic will take one. Logic is
structure, it is something we build on assumptions.
Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the
atom. We always begin in the middle of these.
Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create
definitions. So we logically begin with "that which creates
definitions". Our assumption is therefore that there is
something which results in definitions and start the logical
process. We can call this assumption anything we like.
From this assumption, we can logically work our way up
into high level math, or down into mystical realities. We can
define such results as Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity,
Evolution, Devolution, etc. Let us assume that all these things
are what we have. So I will simplify all those words into one
: Reality. Therefore in the first instance, we have "that which
creates Reality". I am of course referring to our individual
realities, or as Ham would state, our "sensibilities".
Mark, I welcome your suggestion for a new approach to what can so easily
default into an argument over semantics. However, I'm not so sure that
"logic" per se --especially the logic of math -- is the key to a solution.
For one thing, logic applies only to "defined" entities and causal effects,
whereas subjectivity, selfness, mind, awareness, and thoughts are
non-quantifiable phenomena whose relation to objects and events is not
clearly defined. I've always maintained that it is the "concept" which is
necessary for understanding, and where a concept is muddled linguistics and
logic only compound the confusion.
To me, conceptualization begins with what is "self-evident" and proceeds
from there. That's why Marsha's (Albahari's) stance on the self is
particularly frustrating. It is one thing to say that conscious
sensibility, including emotional feelings, involves a series of interrelated
patterns of varying quality or value. It's quite another to deny the very
agent whose identity IS this sensible awareness.
I think Marsha comes closest to concurring with us when she refers to the
Buddhist's "subjective witnessing", as she herself concedes. To witness
something requires a witnessing agent. We may question whether this agent
is a "real entity" or not, in epistemological terms, but can we deny that
it's the proprietary locus and function of all experience? Descartes put it
most simply when he said: "I think, therefore I am." It was his conclusion
that because I (my self) am the thinker and knower, my self exists.
From what I gather, the only reason there so much acrimony here over this
assertion is that Mr. Pirsig, in order to make his Quality thesis
consistent, found it necessary to deny the validity of subjects and objects.
And, since this denial also has the sanction of Zen mysticism, it has been
tacitly accepted as fundamental to the MoQ. Only lately has it become
apparent that there are no grounds for either a "free agent" or "moral
responsibility" in such an ontology. Instead, Freedom is assumed to be what
DQ is, while Morality is intrinsic to the universe or the "social
collective".
While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not
agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things". I
would say that "all things are the measure of man". By this, I mean
that man operates within a world that is provided him. Man's
measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements. Man
harnesses these things and uses them for his own good. He cannot
create them.
I don't quite follow the logic of reversing the Protagoras axiom "Man is the
measure of all things" to "things are the measure of man." The fact that
man's world is "provided to him" does not make the world a measure of his
values or behavior. On the other hand, eliminating the agency of value
denies man the sensible realization on which morality is based and IMO makes
life meaningless.
[snip]
If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal
connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness),
and thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it.
For example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates
thoughts? Where does this First Action lie?
If you consider the Self (sensibility) primary to experiential existence,
then the brain and nervous system may be viewed as the "tools" actualized by
the Self to integrate and organize sense data in conformance with a
relational space/time universe. This is not possible, of course, unless the
Self is a free agent with the power to act independently of causal and
genetic determinism.
Best regards, I enjoy the posts.
Thanks, Mark. I always appreciate your insights.
Essentially yours,
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
