Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA15051 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:08:29 +0100 Message-Id: <f04310100b5e534fd285e@[194.154.110.185]> In-Reply-To: <200009130430.AAA28974@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> References: <200009122140.RAA24133@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> <200009130430.AAA28974@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 15:05:51 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Chris Lees <chrislees@easynet.co.uk> Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Joe wrote :
>The answer to my question is found by taking a look at the word
>"nothing" to describe the purportedly nonexistent self. If we take it
>literally, then the statement is simply false due to self-contradiction
>(gored by the dilemma horns). However, if we take "nothing" to
>mean "no-thing", that is, not a thing, we can understand that the
>self is NOT a thing, in the sense of being simple, static, fixed and
>defineable (the existentialists and phenomenologists have this
>understanding, too). Selfhood is, instead, an evolving, complex,
>recursive emergent interrelating system that is beneath (or beyond)
>the categories of unity and multiplicity, and is "in each case mine"
>(Heidegger), so that each selfhood is irretrieveably individual, and
>the six billion selves present on this planet cannot be reduces to
>any frozen common denominator. This is why Gautama
>Shakyamuni's polyfurcation of the self into different components
>and his subsequent failure to find the self in any of them is an
>illegitimate exercise; it is akin to tearing down a wall, then claiming
>that there never was a wall because no wall can be found in any
>single brick. Selfhood emerges from the recursively complex
>interrelationship between the components of the system. The self
>that can be spoken of is not the eternal (generic or epistemic) self.
>"Neti, neti", the sage said (not this, not that), and that is the case
>with consciousness and the world. Consciousness is neither
>seamlessly integrated within the world nor absolutely bifurcated
>from it, but maintains a perceptual and conceptual perspective
>upon it; they coexist in dynamic interrelation to each other, with
>threshhold and exchange. Selves are both not and not-not the
>world, simultaneously. The self/world system is not one, yet not
>two.
I think my interpretation is rather different.
When it is said ' if there is no self, then what is there to be deluded'
and the answer Mu! is given, this is not an attempt to describe the
features of a self, be it existent or non-existent. I believe it breaks from
the horns of the dilemma in a different way. The answer can also be
'three pounds of flax' or 'this broken tile', so there isn't much that
is 'literal' about it. But neither is it a metaphoric or poetic reply.
We are outside the common familiar western categories into a
specialist area imo.
I like the rest of what you say very much. Interesting thoughts.
Gautama's position on self was kinda reductionist, as you noted.
But over two thousand years of Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese,
and other strains buddhist thinking has occurred since. There is
plenty of variety of interpretation amongst schools and traditions.
"Not one, yet not two", is marvellous I think, but difficult for the
traditional western logical mindset to parse.
C.L.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 15:09:34 BST