Dear Marsha --
I hope you didn't think I've neglected you, but I did want to let my recent
post to Mark sink in before responding to your gracious note of 8/21.
Greetings Ham,
I would never discourage you from speaking on whatever topis
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.
Ms. Albahari would appear to be somewhat ambivalent on this issue, despite
her
allegiance to the Buddhist tradition of no-self. But if, as you say, she
concludes her analysis by presenting the concept of awareness/witnessing as
having an independent reality, this is acceptable to me as the "free Self".
(Incidentally, I'm ignoring "constructed and therefore not illusory" because
it's a rhetorical expression that really has no meaning in an ontological
context.)
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.
Yes, I take "cutting edge of reality" to mean not only subjective witnessing
(proprietary awarenss) but the sculpting or shaping of objective reality.
This may be extending the function of experience beyond what Pirsig
intended, but I am persuaded that experience is not simply a passive
response to sensory data, but the "active conversion" of value sensibility
into the forms and properties of objective phenomena. It is my belief that
the laws and principles that apply to a self-supporting system are imbued in
Value itself, and that it is experience which configures our construct of
the physical universe in accordance with these parameters.
Admittedly, this is a "heavy" concept to throw out in a sentence or two, but
the bottom line is that physical reality is no less "illusory" than your
ineffable self. You can talk "patterns" until you're blue in the face, but
it won't explain existence as a comprehensible ontology. You spoke of
"reification" some time ago. What is a pattern but a reified idea or
precept? If everything is nothing more than a patterned idea, what, pray
tell, is the fundamental reality? Mr. Prisig would like us to believe it's
Quality. He elevates DQ to the supreme level and reduces everything else to
a static pattern of Quality and -- Eureka! -- he's got a metaphysics. But
metaphysics is more than a euphemistic paradigm. And "pattern" is only a
convenient fudge-word that avoids having to posit a workable thesis.
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.
If your self has proven to be false, are you then bearing "false witness"?
;-)
Marsha, I have no desire to discredit Albahari (whose book I haven't read),
or any other philosopher, for that matter. I know her insights inspire you,
and inspiration is what fuels the fire of intellectual debate. Recently
I've had similar experiences off-line with two former MD participants. One
of them, Tim, besieged me for weeks with quotes from a book by an obscure
philosopher named Howison. He was so enthusiastic about this author's
theory, so convinced it had something in common with Essentialism, that I
finally gave in and purchased the book from Amazon. The upshot was
disappointing for both of us; I didn't find Howison's theory compatible with
my philosophy, and Tim couldn't persuade me to revise Essentialism by
incorporating the author's premises.
Call me stubborn, if you must, but having gone through the process of
working out a personal philosophy, it takes more than the excitement of an
erstwhile correspondent to change my convictions. And while I do believe we
have some common ground to work on, Marsha, it's not yet clear whether our
differences are fundamental or only semantic.
Meantime, it's my pleasure to hear your views and share in your
excitement -- even if it means having to reinterpret some of your
conclusions.
All the best,
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
