Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA09543 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 28 Apr 2001 13:21:19 +0100 Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:17:27 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism)) Message-ID: <20010428121727.B1282@ii01.org> References: <20010424134414.AAA10547@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>; <20010425202254.A513@ii01.org> <3AE72289.8580.1153E92@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AE72289.8580.1153E92@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:16:25PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@ii01.org> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:16:25PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2001, at 20:22, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> Actually, our perception of reality would have to bear a part/whole
> relation to the reality we are perceiving, for it to have evolved and
> been selected. Those who saw tigers that were not there, or
> missed tigers that were, simply didn't survive to reproduce, and as
> Leakey has maintained, the history of the evolution of life on this
> planet has been the history of the evolution of the capacity to more
> precisely and inclusively act upon our environment, which required
> the evolution of the capacity to more precisely and inclusively
> represent it as well. Whatever the thing-in-itself might be as a
> whole, it has to be such that it noncontradictorally includes the
> thing-for-us as a component or aspect. Our perception of our lived
> world is forever incomplete, as any empirically perceived object is
> phenomenologically inexhaustible, but it is not incorrect.
That in no way contradicts what I said -- though it adds to it --
and I basically agree with it, even though there's a smidgeon of
subjective/objective confusion in it.
> I will give you credit for having moved quite a deal over the time we
> have corresponded; you once insisted that the self itself was a
> delusion, until you realized the point you presented, that in the
> absence of a deludee, no delusion is possible. Now if you'll just
> meditate on the fact that Siddhartha messed up when he
> attempted to split the self into components, then claimed not to be
> able to find the self in any of them, like demolishing a wall and
> being unable to find it in any brick, perhaps an enhanced
> understanding of the emergence of self from complex interrelations
> will result. And then again, perhaps not.
As usual, you conflate different concepts of the self. The self that is
not found via analysis is the self of the eternalists, and is much closer
to the concept of the soul. The Buddhist doctrine of anatta means "no
soul" and is a reaction against the Hindu concept of the soul, Sanskrit:
atta. That is quite different from the self of emergent materialism,
which is actually just a brain-bound function.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 : Sat Apr 28 2001 - 13:24:45 BST