Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA26783 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:19:05 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:58:08 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Self-defense Message-ID: <20001213215808.A10812@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001213004026.AAA25342@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.122]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001213004026.AAA25342@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.122]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 07:42:06PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 07:42:06PM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
>
> >Surely the self is
> >distinct, figure as opposed to ground, while the concept of no-self
> >denies any objective basis for that distinction.
>
> Distinction seems to be the key here. I would say that, yes, the 'self'
> is, with caveats, distinct to the human species, but, no, I would offer
> no other distinction, nor see the need for any. The self is the way we
> happened. I see it as a developmental construct of the human organism. To
> remove it, (or suggest that the groundwork for its existence, life on
> this earth itself, could happen without its eventual presence) would seem
> to me to demand that we as homo sapiens are somehow removed from the
> general case of evolution, and somehow made distinct from what we
> actually are, and I see that as an attempt at a divine distinction, and
> I, for one and always, would never defend that.
By that logic, any disagreement with you regarding evolution is an
attempt at a divine distinction. That logic is what's sometimes called
"tortured". Or, perhaps, "not-logic".
> The 'not-self' of transcendental ideologies, such as buddhism and
> psychedelic shamanism, has always seemed to me to be, not an erasure, or
> an attempt at erasure, of the _material_ reality of the self, but an
> attempt to 'de-egotize' it- divide it into constituent psychological
> parts. It's a social/communal identity, this attempt at non-identity, and
> not one that I, for one and always, would ever condemn.
I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 Dec 13 2000 - 22:20:32 GMT