[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
intrusions are welcome,
Tim


I'll combine both of your recent posts here:

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:53:54 -0800, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> Hi Tim,
> In terms of your faithful-I.  Sometimes I think that the faithful I is
> imaged through other.  That is another person.  You see this person and
> you
> think that is like me.  At that point you look at yourself from that
> perspective.  This could be considered self awareness in an objective
> way.
>  Now, if there were no other, hard to imagine I know, the view of one
>  would
> only be outward, not inward.  The experience would be one of interaction
> but
> without a subject.  Just a weird thought.
> 
> Sorry to intrude.  I am enjoying your conversation with A.
> 
> Mark
> 

the other one:

[Tim]

> While I was reading ZAMM and Lila, I felt that I was comming at it from
> across the aisle.  Anyway, my paradigm - and I would ask you: what if
> you look at reality as the "absolute source" trying to know itself?
>
>
> [Mark]
I believe this is a similar notion that I have been presenting to Ham. 
The
absolute source is differentiated by the body/mind.  But the I (I think
faithful I to you) is looking out through the body mind from the
absolute
source, kind of like a window or an avatar.  The body/mind then looks
back
to understand who is looking through the window.

Does this make sense?

I think we are close...

I had said earlier somewhere that I must be protected even from myself. 
I guess that is why I'm leaning to such language as 'faith'.  Similarly,
I am wondering if Ham's "absolute essence" must be ultimately protected
from itself.  Anyway, this is getting to your proposition that you know
yourself through the prism of other.  Since this knowledge must be
mediated by 'other', you can never quite get there.  But you can keep
getting closer.  Also, it is from consideration along teh lines of "the
I is looking out through the body mind from the absolute source", at
least if I am understanding theis closely enough, that I have wondered
whether I need also an "I-as-idea" - then there would be 4, ish.  My
'faithful I' is something I see as playing other to absolute essence,
perhaps giving it a window to itself at the same time it gives me the
prism to myself.

regarding your comment about "if there were no other, hard to imagine I
know, the view of one would only be outward, not inward."  This is the
problem I imagine too.  Thus the necessity of the other, the prism, what
is commonly regarded as reality...  Thus the imposibility of ever
actually attaining the 'object', or the strictly 'objective'...  thus
the continuing process...  thus a faithful, fair, and moral physics - or
so I suspect.

I'm glad you are enjoying my conversation with Alexander; and I'm glad
to know too.  I'm also enjoying it!
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...