Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA10234 (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 22:31:34 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:33:57 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism)) Message-ID: <3AEAF0F5.32407.1F8845@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010428121727.B1282@ii01.org> References: <3AE72289.8580.1153E92@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:16:25PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 28 Apr 2001, at 12:17, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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.
>
What's the smidgen?
>
> > 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.
>
You are correct that the investigation of the skandhas was
undertaken to undermine the idea of a body-independent soul, but
it also had the efect, within credulous or shallow minds, of causing
them to also self-contradictorily (I love that double entendre!) deny
the very self that was speaking the denial. The self of the
emergent materialists is autochthonous; it is dependent for its
existence upon and arises (emerges) from the very material
substrate ground (the brain) that it then proceeds to recursively to a
degree maintain and effect. The emergent self and its material
substrate brain are neti, neti; not one, not two, but a system, and
systems, with regard to their components and their synergistically
(via dynamic interrelation) generated partial governors, are beyond
or beneath the categories of unity and multiplicity.
> --
> 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 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 - 22:34:58 BST