Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA16410 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 14 Sep 2000 02:21:58 +0100 Message-Id: <200009140119.VAA05577@mail0.lig> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:24:12 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: solipsistic view on memetics In-reply-to: <f04310100b5e534fd285e@[194.154.110.185]> References: <200009130430.AAA28974@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: 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
Send 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.
>
My point here is that human infants are little machines genetically
programmed to transcend their programming, and to become free
and unique individuals rather than have their responses
circumscribed by species-wide instincts. The essence of human
consciousness is to have no essence; this is not the same as to
have no existence. It just means that there is no essence-in-
general for selfhood, and each human self-consciousness spends
its life constructing its own essence-in-particular. This is hardly a
matter of decribing general features of selfhood, but a matter of
asserting that such things do not exist, as selfhood is in each case
particular.
>
> 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.
>
The Lotus Sutra contains another mistake, in which it is asserted
that "the mind is not in the world; the world is in the mind". In fact,
these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive - but if one takes
them as so, then the wrong contention is selected for truth-
ascription. Our minds ARE esconsed in the evolving world, AND
an evolving representation of the world resides in each mind. And
while it is true that a representation of the world is not, and can
never be, the world itself, as the map is never the territory, we
yet experientially refine our individual maps throughout our lives to
most closely match the common territory (and the individual
aspects of it) which they represent.
>
> 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 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 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 02:23:03 BST