Hollo Ham, On Oct 14, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> > On Fri, Sept. 14, 2011 at 5:02 AM, "MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It's a little unfair to label it 'Marsha's argument for the Buddhist >> 'no-self', >> given the following excerpts from the MoQ: >> >> ... >> >> >> > > Dear Marsha -- > > I didn't mean to impugn you personally for having INITIATED the 'no-self' > hypothesis, but rather to offer a caveat to Mark, with whom you've had some > disagreements, that my Essence hypothesis poses some of the same difficulties > in common. > > Interesting, isn't it, that the idea of 'selfness' has been attacked by > atheists, nihilists, objectivists, Buddha and Pirsig alike. They all want to > deny themselves any claim to Reality, as if their "souls" would contaminate > it. And yet, they identify their "personhood" as real, are counted as > discrete individuals, and understand that it is they themselves--who > experience the world and interpret it valuistically. > > In fact, since it is the self which experiences--and even Pirsig says > "experience is the cutting edge of reality"--there would be no world without > a self. Man's reality is a Self/Other relationship, no matter how you define > these terms. If you read my recent post to Mark, it may have surprised you > that I don't regard the "personal 'I'" as a metaphysical reality. However, > both Sensibility (awareness) and Value (Quality) are derived from Essence, > and the coupling of these attributes creates the Self. In other words, you > and I are essentially "value-sensible agents", and the freedom with which we > are empowered is a result of our autonomy in relation to the Source. > > Our function in existence is PRECISELY "to look out through [our sensory > organs] in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world" as the > Cartesian 'ME' suggests. > Indeed, why else would we be here? > > Try meditating on that point, Marsha. (It could provide the insight you're > looking for.) > > Yours in the quest for meaning, > --Ham > Within Philosophy of Mind, there seems to be a separation between 'sense of self', 'autonomous self' and 'subjective perspective'. My initial introduction to this division what through Ms. Albahari's book, but I have since discovered that it is a topic being considered by many modern philosophers and neuroscientists. I have mentioned to you before there has been something you write when addressing the individual that appeals to me. I believe it was this 'sense of self' or 'subjective perspective' for I have found no evidence of an autonomous self. None. Nada. I find only the flow of concepts and percepts (patterns). Yes, I was surprised to hear you state that you did not regard the "personal 'I'" as a metaphysical reality. I understood that to mean that the 'I' does not ontologically exist. Here we agree. Ahhh, but what of the 'subjective perspective? Is this real? At this point, the flow _seems_ real enough to me when I pay attention to immediate experience. And it seems that this is where the freedom lies. But it is impossible to take the subjective as object, so it does all seem illusive. I dont' know how you can be certain about "our function". It's pure speculation as far as I can see, and unnecessary. The experience of a rose is the same whether there is purpose assigned or not. So maybe you don't mean an 'autonomous self' but mean instead a 'subjective perspective'? I don't expect to find answers, only a continued 'not this, not that', but then that negation might come with its own affirmation. In some ways, it already has. Thank you, Ham. Marsha ___ 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
