[MD] Ever redefining self

[Peter Corteen]

Hi SA and Ham,

Ham said:
Seriously, I think this effort by you and others to reconcile all of our
diverging perspectives into a "philosophy of everything" is doomed to fail.

Peter:
I must try to find a philosophy of everything.

Ham:
The best we can do is to articulate our own perspectives, without trying to
force-fit them into some other author's scheme of things.  None of us is
able to grasp the whole picture, but occasionally someone's idea or concept
can lead to a moment of clarity -- a kind of epiphany, as it were -- that we
may each in our own way incorporate into our particular worldview, thereby
helping to comprehend the mystery of existence.  At least this is what I
have been striving to do.

Peter:
Well said.

Ham said:
The concept of "spandrels", like the tretrallema (sp?), is not one of those
insights for me.  One phrase that bothered me in your first paragraph was
"in which we notice an 'I'".  We cannot help noticing it because we ARE it.

Peter:
Agreed, in the sense that all those static spandrels (subjective, mind,
levels 1 and 2 and objective matter levels 3 and 4) form the individual and
when there is sufficient electricity in it decorates itself with an I.

Ham said:
Proprietary awareness isn't something we have to set about to look for; it's
the foundation of all experience.  No knowledge becomes ours in any other
way than as awareness.  That's my first point.

Peter said:
OK. As I said before awareness is not an act of faith that you believe what
you see to be real; awareness supports thought and thought projects idea of
self.


Ham said:
Now the 'nothingness' that I'm talking about is the apparent non-existence
of the 'I' or self.  As I see it, experiential reality is a dichotomy
between two "essents": subjective awareness and objective beingness.  We
have no trouble identifying "beingness"; we all agree on its diverse
components, physical attributes, laws of behavior, arrangement in space, and
evolution in time.  We consider them universal facts.  On the other hand, we
can't measure, quantify, or objectively observe awareness, so we pretend it
isn't important, relevant, or even "real".

Peter:
I ain't pretending awareness isn't real!

Ham said:
Yet, beingness is only the "appearance of otherness" to the conscious self.
There is no "being" that is not being-aware.  In other words, the value of
being is its capacity to become the self's awareness.  And, conversely, the
value of awareness is its capacity to make being-aware.  (IMO it's why we're
all here.)  There is no value in either essent by itself; value is
essential -- it represents the primary unity of the Whole of which
appearance is but a passing phase called existence.

Peter:
Not sure what an essent is; makes me think I should stop using the word
spandrels.

Ham said:
Does that ontological scenario hold any meaning for you?  If so, perhaps
I've ignited a small spark in your thinking that clarifies a few things. If
not, no offense;
I'll simply try to express it in another way at a later
time, in the hope that it may eventually take seed and flourish.

Peter:
Patronising.

Ham said:
What I will not do is play the game of 'Pirsig Says', parse his statements,
or
rework my philosophy so that Essentialism will be seen as compatible with
the MoQ.  And, should this approach be deemed inappropriate or demeaning to
this forum, I shall fold my tent and quietly steal away, as the Arabs were
once thought to do.

Peter:
Not demeaning just posturing.

Regard

Peter