Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA07588 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:31:18 GMT Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:45:29 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Self-defense Message-ID: <20001217124529.A1380@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <20001216225002.AAA13562@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.104]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001216225002.AAA13562@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.104]>; from wade_smith@harvard.edu on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 05:51:43PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 05:51:43PM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Robin Faichney --
>
> >But what I find more interesting is why you insist
> >that I'm necessarily making divine distinctions.
>
> Because I can't for the life of me see where within the material universe
> you think this 'no-self' has come....
>
> And I equate all contentions of the supernatural with the divine.
Gosh, Wade, your thinking processes continue to amaze me. The "no-self"
did not come from anywhere. There is no such thing, if you take "thing"
to imply physical existence. What there is, is a doctrine that contends
that the word "self" does not refer unequivocally to any particular thing.
One version of that doctrine is called "anatta", from the Sanskrit
words "an" meaning "no", and "atta" meaning soul or self. This was,
historically, one of the main ways in which Buddhism differed from
Hinduism, and (IMHO, obviously) improved upon it: "atta" is Hindu,
"anatta" is Buddhist. But I find it hard to get my head around the
idea that anyone could imagine "anatta" or "no-self" to refer to an
actual thing.
> And you don't (am I wrong about this) contend that no-one is born without
> it, but that, after periods of specialized training, one can nevertheless
> 'lose' it, this self thingee....
Seeing through the concept of the self, realising that the concept is
(almost) all there is, is sometimes poetically described as losing,
or, better, transcending the self, but seeing through the illusion is
all that actually happens. Infants, of course, have no such concept.
You're a great self-mystifier, Wade -- in at least two senses!!
> Or is it perhaps that what you don't call the self is the same thing I do
> call it?
That's possible, too. (Ignoring the rhetorical negation, of course.)
In fact, the equivocal nature of the word is primary for me. When I'm
not arguing with those who insist that the self is unequivocally real,
I take the view that the concept is too complex and vague to have a
referent that's EITHER simply real or simply unreal. This has the
practical (and I do mean PRACTICAL) consequence that it can be used or
left aside as appropriate in any given context.
One of these practicalities is, of course, the use of the word "I".
Superficial consistency is a hobgoblin of those who are small-minded
enough to think the universe is simple. Objectivists being a PRIME
example.
-- 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 : Sun Dec 17 2000 - 13:32:45 GMT