From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 16:29:17 BST
Hi Ham, (Ian mentioned)
Ham
> Let me make some preliminary comments to show you where I'm coming from.
> I'll "run these up the flagpole", as they say in the ad game, and see what
> they produce. I've quoted the following statement by William James in my
> thesis because I think it can serve as a springboard for insight on the
> proprietary nature of Consciousness:
>
> "One great splitting of the whole universe is made by each of us, and for
> each of us almost all of the interest attaches to one of the halves: but we
> all draw the line of division between them in a different place. When I
> say that we call the two halves by the same names, and that these names are
> 'me' and 'not-me', respectively, it will at once be seen what I mean." --
> "Principles of Psychology"
Excellent quote from James who, more than most, not only recognizes both
the reality and separateness of the individual, but also and at the same
time that self and other are always coexistent, i.e., that while awareness
and content appear different they are inseparable, i.e., what you see is
you-seeing.
> But when we try to define "selfness" we run
> into the very same problem we confront when trying to define God or the
> essential source. It has no definable attributes. The "self" is an
> empirical nothingness. (Keep that in mind: you'll see later why it's
> metaphysically significant.)
I know awareness by being it. I know my self by being one. But, who is the
the I that knows me?"
> In other words,
> "selfness" is irreducible and its awareness is non-transferable.
Agree. I'll never know what it's like to be kissed by me. Paradoxically,
we are forever separate, but never apart.
> I have some plausible solutions to these paradoxes; however, I'll save them
> for the proper time. Let's see how the others react to this emphasis on a
> "proprietary" self. I fully expect some to reject the concept outright as
> "overblown egoism", or something equivalent. But at least you have
> provided an opportunity to begin our discussion at what to me is the most
> logical "jumping off" place for philosophy.
Me, too. We're definitely on the same page. That's why I like Pirsig. He
starts with the experience of the "proprietary" self as exemplified in his
famous "hot stove" description of Quality.
> Meantime, maybe you will provide us with a fuller explanation of your
> "energy field" Force Consciousness.
All in due time. But to peak curiosity (or is it peek?), consciousness
surrounds the quantum field as evidenced by the act of observation causing
quantum potentials to become manifest to create our world.
(Hopefully, Ian will have something to say about that.)
Best regards,
Platt
>
> Essentially (as always),
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Jul 23 2005 - 21:37:06 BST