[MD] Ever redefining self

[Heather Perella]

Hello everybody (Ham and Peter mentioned),

     Peter mention of spandrels shocked me into a
moment today.  I took a walk in the woods, sat down,
and meditated.  Still this persistent view took place.
 This view of spandrels, 'I', and self-awareness all
blurred together.  This airy space in our nervous
system (tied with all else we are supporting such an
outcome known as a human being) in which we notice an
'I' is a self-awareness of 'I'.  What is the 'I' we
are self-aware of?  Spandrels, here is the definition
of these as follows:

     "In the context of evolution, a spandrel is a
metaphor for characteristics that are or were
orginally side effects and not true adaptions to the
environment. This metaphorical meaning works no matter
which kind of architectural spandrel is referred to:
the spandrel is the un-designed gap between other
features, which is then often exploited for a use of
its own." 
     ( http://spandrel.com/about.html )

     Ham, notice I mentioned airy space up top here. 
By airy space, I am trying to describe an 'I' that is
self-aware, yet, our (moq.org) continual redefining of
what self is, what 'I' is, what this 'I' is, is an act
of defining the self.  What is self?  Now, using airy
space might be similar to what you, Ham, mention as
nothingness.  This would be the dynamic quality of
quality.  Dynamic quality has an empty bottom.  No
matter how much we may try to fill the contents of
anything, it will have this bottomless pit aspect
where no matter how much we try we can never come to a
base or principle that we can point at and say that's
the essential 'thing' of 'it' as to what 'it' is in
isolation from everything else.  Eventually the base
level of anything will begin to jump between 'things'.
 The borders and definition of 'anything' will blur
and connecting links between 'individuals' are
noticeable.  This would be an endeavor that physics
has now to come up with a Theory of Everything with
the assumption that somehow this whole universe fits
together as one universe.  To do this solely on
physical evidence will side step consciousness, and
thereby the Theory of Everything would not include
everything, and the Theory will be a try, but not
complete until what is obvious links with what is
scientific discipline.
  
     Pirsig is defining a self as having a chaotic,
inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual static
patterns.  This 'self', as I see it, is everything, it
is the world, universe, and anything that is.  We, as
human beings, are not just of this self or part of
this self, but intellectually we are able to provide a
large encompassing mirror of this Big Self within
ourselves.  We haven't ever, as human beings, been
able to identify everything this Big Self is, even as
this Big Self mirrors itself through us.  This
mirroring is our consciousness.  I cannot say this is
a total hologram perspective (this mirroring) or a
dualistic separation of smaller self from Big Self.  
     First, this is not a total hologram perspective,
where the system or process of the world or cosmos is
totally miniaturized within the human being
consciously.  I think this way, because I don't know
everything, and nobody knows everything, thus, we are
not conscious of everything in this world.
     Second, this is not a dualistic separation of
smaller self from Big Self.  To put it plainly we are
tied together with this world as participants of this
world so we cannot be totally separated.
     The emergent, convergent, or middle way would
provide the human being population with diversity,
based on our unique experiences that provide
particular conscious beings.  This diversity does not
have to be an idea that collapses into relativistic
paths of being soo diverse that mediation and group
activity stops.  Groups of people can come together
and experience similar events.  Sure we each may come
out of the experience with our individual views and
opinions of the event, yet, we all can say we all
experienced that particular event.  Consensus is
possible.
     This ever defining of self becomes time after
time an ever redefining self always noticing something
else becoming aware of more than what it previous
noticed and put into thought.  This act of defining
what self is also seems to be a middle way between Big
self transacting with Little self.  The Big self is
what we become to know existed already, as black holes
have been here, put we have only become aware of them
recently in human history.  The Little self of a human
being would encompass everything we think we are.  We
are not just inorganic beings, but also social
creatures, as well as intellectual creatures putting
what we are aware of into thought.  These patterns are
more solid than the more fluid, less defined of
something more that we can touch upon, yet, not fully
describe.
     Now to wrap this up.  Spandrel, 'I', nothingness,
'what we are aware of' or in other words what we are
self-aware of is not very patterned and understood
logically or identifiable as some totally discrete
self where we can always point at and say that's me,
that's us, that's everything.  It is, as of now, a
bottomless endeavor where we never come to some
completely describable 'thing' and say that's it!  Now
we solved it and have come up with 'what this is'.
     Something is definitely present and enabling us
to have the effort to view our self.  As quoted above,
"...the spandrel is the un-designed gap between other
features, which is then often exploited for a use of
its own."  This effort to view our self seems to
follow in step, as and act, process, system, view,
effort of an "... un-designed gap between other
features..."  and these other features are known or
knowable, but always 'something' un-designed (not a
static pattern), a gap, nothingness, 'I', self (Big or
Little self as far as we know), dynamic quality is the
result.  This result is open-ended, and we, as human
beings, seem to exploit this open-endedness for our
use.  We either want to materially craft it (art,
architecture, making an arrow-head, building a car,
etc...), philosophically craft it (define),
scientifically craft it (theorize), and politically
idealize (how or what kind of society will we live as
and have), etc...
     This effort can also be called artwork.  The
canvas of life on this earth with sky is set with us
and we carve with our consciousness a look, a
perspective, and always this act is open-ended, never
stopping, never fully complete, never finished.  We
wake tomorrow.  We die and what that is, alludes me
ever-still.  And so we go on, ever redefining self,
coming to know (pattern) the system, the view we live
amidst and could call this our self, and still we can
wonder, 'what is this self we are conscious of?', and
the on-going, open-ended, bottomless, airy space, will
fill and fill, and never does it fill-up.  This
actually, when I reflect upon what I am saying, is an
insane pursuit I describe to think a result, even a
way I can totally describe to you the reader what I am
talking about, because always will something be
open-ended and the insane desire to complete anything,
thinking it is complete, is pointless and a vain act
indeed.

Thanks,
SA 

 
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com