From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Sun Nov 28 2004 - 01:38:54 GMT
In a message dated 11/27/04 6:11:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jse885@earthlink.net writes:
No, I don't think this is out of line, but it doesn't address my concern,
nor does your previous post. My concern is that we are aware of change, but we
are also aware of our continuity. If we examine what we observe more closely,
we see that all there is is change. So where does the awareness of change
come from, given that it requires that something (our sense of self) doesn;t
change *through* the change we observe.
Hi Scott,
Please forgive me, as I don't think I understand where sense of self fits in
with change, or the 'Awareness of change'. Maybe this is where I am getting
confused and confusing. We are aware of change through experience. It is not
'A' singular change, but a process of innumerable particular terms, or SQ
lapse and are superseded by new terms, or the DQ.
You also stated;
"This is an old philosophical problem, called the problem of mind. All that
we observe (except ourself) is always changing. So where does our sense of
continuous self come from? All that the MOQ does is rename the problem, not
resolve it. I don't think there is a resolution, but with the logic of
contradictory identity the problem is more clearly stated."
You are speaking in terms of 'Self' such in Eastern cultures(?) And, for
mind, are you speaking in terms of a 'Sound mind'? A sound mind would be one
like Rigel's who accepts the culture unconditionally, and never changing. A
pluralistic mind would be one that changes to reflect the better understanding. A
'Continuous Self' should as well. Right?
Whether the changes to the individual 'Self' come from historical,
political, cultural, religious, art, or scientific data, or even biological changes of
the body, the 'Self' would change to reflect this.
'Self' or 'Non-Self' are thinking in an abstract that is not related to the
awareness of change in thinking in object and subject, or SQ and DQ. I would
not think experience had anything to do with 'Self', if you were speaking in
terms of 'Self' as an individual not being plausible.
If we are talking of an individual 'Self', then the individual does change,
there is not continuous, unchanging 'Self' in the individual. If you are
speaking of spiritual or mystic 'Self', then the spiritual or mystic self does
not require a recognition of physical change.
I'm going to shut up now, as it is becoming quite obvious (even to me) that
I do not understand what you are saying about a nonchanging self.
Please understand that I have most likely not read near as much as you or
others. I think it was Will Rogers who said; "The most ignorant is an educated
man outside the field in which he was educated." It is obvious I am not
educated in this field, so please don't think I am trying to put on pretenses of
being so. I sometimes forget I am dealing with a history, such as the history
you speak of in which identity and contradictory identity need to be
reconciled.
Is it that you are speaking in terms of philosophology(sp?), and I in terms
of philosophy?
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 28 2004 - 01:41:27 GMT