On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
[Mark] I do not think my approach was new, but thanks anyway. I was simply starting with an assumption, just as you do with the creation of the concept of Essence. From such assumptions we can build structure. All of the the nouns you use are absolutely quantifiable through language, in fact that is all we do. Math is just a language just as German is. Do you think that imaginary numbers really exist? They can't, that is why they are called imaginary, we created them to fulfill a type of logic. However we certainly use them to make very important things such as iPads. In exactly the same way, we create concepts such as awareness to provide meaning and predictions. My intent was simply to start at the beginning. If you did not like that assumption just think of it as "Essence is the source of Reality". > > 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. [Mark] I stated that there is something that creates reality which I feel is a self-evident type of thing? You present Essence as such a thing so I would assume that you agree. We can go one step further and say that there is something that creates each Self, or sensible awareness as you seem to call Atman. The question is therefore, are these two separate things such as would be implied by pluralism? Or is it all the same thing? Each argument has its logical conclusions. The former implies free will, the latter implies a monistic mechanistic world that is based on the "Original Idea". I know which you prefer, it is the same one I prefer. > > 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. [Mark] Yes, although I am not sure if Marsha has any idea of what she is talking about. Her mouth is too full of potato chips. Of course the Agent is a real entity. If it is not real, then nothing is real. If nothing is real, then everything is real since there is no opposite. You are not the thinker, you are the witness of thoughts. "You experience thoughts", not "Your thoughts create you". The latter is just ridiculous and completely falls apart on examination. How can thinking create one? Did your brain create you? How did it give you your personal sense of awareness? The brain is just a bunch of tissue. > > 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". [Mark] What Pirsig is saying about S/O is that it is overly dominant in Western Thought. In fact, it can be completely denied, and perhaps about 10% of ones life changes, mostly for the better. The only purpose of s/o is to communicate with somebody else. It is not used in ones personal awareness outside of that. Unless one is always talking to oneself. Zen mysticism as you call it, is simply being aware that your thoughts are happening to you. You are not your thoughts. If you think you are, you are trapped by memory, and there is no free will. Pirsig is not saying anything new that has not been said a thousand time before by great thinkers. I have no idea how you can say that a world free of s/o has no free will. It is all free will in such a world. Of course there is a free agent, anybody who uses the word "I" has immediately agreed to such a thing. Else-wise they would be referring to themselves as "this servant" like some kind of misguided monk. > >> 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. [Mark] I have railed against Protagoras for many an eon. That two trees are separated by some distance, is not a creation of Man. Those trees are there, and man experiences them. What Protagoras is stuck in, is complete subjectivism. Kind of like the "brain in the vat" idea that leaves very little room for free will. Does man measure that something is Hot? Or is it hot and he experiences it? Your sensible agent must be given something measurable. Such a thing must therefore already have measurements. We cannot create these things. > > [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. [Mark] The Self is a free agent, the body/brain is not. Have you ever tried to hold your breath forever? There is very little that is free about our thoughts occurring. What we do have freedom with is assigning an importance to those thoughts. Such a thing occurs outside of the physical. The self can absolutely act outside of causal criteria. We do it all the time. Ever change your mind for no reason what-so-ever? > >> Best regards, I enjoy the posts. > > Thanks, Mark. I always appreciate your insights. I am not sure if they are insights, at best they are good rhetoric. Adios amigo, Mark > > 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 > 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
