[MD] atheistic and content

[Ham Priday]

On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Marsha wrote:


> Greetings Ham,
>
> How about if I concede a bit.  I might consider there is individual
> experience/existing, but it is not anything like an independent,
> controlling self who is in-charge of its experiences.
> It would be more like seeing would be unique from your individual eyes
> and point-of-view, and different then the experience of seeing from my
> individual eyes and point-of-view.  But still no self.  This is always
> where I want to agree with you.   So that's no to the 'I', but yes to the
> individual.   What would you say about this?

I would say that 'self' is undeniably the seat of consciousness.  As such it 
is the locus of awareness, experience, knowledge, sensibility, and every 
other aspect of the individual's relation to the world.  The self is, as you 
say, a "point-of-view".  That view is unique to each individual self.

[John injects]:
> What means this "biologically bound"?  "Binding" seems disparaging to me,
> as if poor, poor intellect... TRAPPED in this filthy biological shell.

John is right.  To describe the individual self as a "patterned piece" of 
nature, quality, intellect, or anything else is a misconception.  The 
individuality of conscious awareness is as "absolute" as any division can 
be.  We each exist as a POV; it is our valuistic connection with the 
essential Source.

You have an aversion to the term "I", which is often equated with "ego" and 
has a deprecatory inference.  I think this is why you have adapted the 
Buddhistic notion of 'no-self'.  But, Marsha, if all consciousness is 
proprietary to the individual self, and we are all self-aware, then "I" is 
how we identify that self.  This is not to deny the influence of society and 
language on the thinking individual, or the dependence on organic beingness 
for our existence.  Rather, it's a denial that the self is biological, 
social, or even experiential in nature.  The "essence" of selfness is 
proprietary awareness, or what I call "sensibility".

The reason I put so much stress on that definition is that we cannot 
logically be "free agents" of Value if we are bound to physical reality or 
the so-called "collective consciousness".  Value-sensibility is independent 
of the "otherness" it experiences and intellectualizes.  Epistemologically 
the self MUST be independent of the phenomenal world in order to serve as 
the measure of Value in existence.

Your admission of this truth is not a "concession" to me, Marsha.  It's an 
important first step to understanding that without a self there is no 
realization . . . which means no awareness of otherness, no appreciation of 
Quality/Value or Morality, and no experience of things in process.  Stir 
that into your metaphysical stew and see if it doesn't improve the flavor.

Essentially yours,
Ham