[MD] The Cartesian "me" versus the MOQ's "me".

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

Two small issues.  First I DO agree one can usefully think of the first 
two levels as equivalent to the individual, as associated with an 
individual body.  But to me a Cartesian entity, is a mind centered 
entity.  For Descarte it was "I think, therefore I am" not "I walk, therefore 
I am."  But putting ALL this behind, I think to know interconnectedness 
is the important experience, and seems difficult to accept.   

Thanks,
Marsha 


On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:05 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha and anyone else interested in my opinion (which I know
> leaves a few avatars out),
> 
> I have been reading through these posts, which are fast and furious,
> and thought I would respond to what is being called the Cartesian Me.
> Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion which seems to be
> propagated.  My exposition will be based on the distinct levels that
> are used to help describe Quality.
> 
> The Cartesian Me does exist within the Societal Level, it has to.  It
> is what makes up the societal level, and what the societal level
> influences.  It is not an illusion.  This is not hard to see.  As a
> single sensing being, we cannot find a location for what we term the
> "I".  We never will be able to, since it does not exist at this level.
> As a group, we can define and use the individual "I" without any
> problem whatsoever.
> 
> Where the difficulty seems to come up is in discussions which
> mistakenly perform a mixing of levels.  It seems that some conflate
> the individual consciousness level with structures within the Societal
> level, and this nullifies the distinction between the levels.  It is
> like ascribing aspects of fire to those of water.  There are many
> qualitative differences between the two.
> 
> Therefore, the acceptance of levels provides a very easy solution to
> what seems to be circular arguments without resolution.  At the
> societal level the self exists, but not at the individual level.  In
> the same way, the atom does not exist at the inorganic level, whereas
> it does in the intellectual level.  Species do not exist at the
> biological level, but do at the societal and intellectual levels.  I
> hope this is not getting to unclear for readers.
> 
> If we agree that the levels are useful, we must use them logically in
> a discussion of MoQ.  By ascribing attributes of one level to another,
> we arrive at encompassing statements that bear no fruit at all.  They
> are misdirections on the path of MoQ, and easily confuse and deny the
> existence of things.
> 
> Finally, I would like to present what I have been reading concerning
> the use of the term "illusion".  It seems that this word is being used
> to represent something that isn't real.  However, it is quite clear
> that an illusion represents a specific real thing, such as an illusion
> of an oasis in the desert.  Therefore, illusions are
> misinterpretations of very real things.  This would be in contrast to
> delusions.  So when it is said that the self is an illusion, this
> would mean that such "self" exists, just not as we think it does.
> Otherwise it would not be called an illusion.  If we take the premise
> of Buddhism that the self does not exist, but arises as a result of
> what some fondly call Patterns in this forum, then what exactly are we
> pointing to with the concept of self?  I certainly know that I exist,
> be it as a codependent arising or whatever.  The fact that things do
> not inherently exist is obvious from chemistry and physics where
> everything is made up of something smaller, down to the infinitely
> small.
> 
> In the past I have tried to begin discussion on what the levels
> symbolize as metaphysical tools.  I have suggested repeatedly that the
> Intellectual level is not individual intellect.  It can't be.  The
> Societal Level is not a group of individuals, since that is not a
> Level.  The biological is not a collection of inorganic molecules.
> Within one level, the other levels are of mysterious consciousness.
> We can look for signs of their existence; any projection of their
> attributes must treat them as self perpetuating entities.  This does
> not mean that one level cannot impinge its quality on another level,
> since we are discussing personal opinions through the societal level,
> and as a result often opinions are transformed.  But, this is a topic
> for another time.  Levels can be very useful for explaining things if
> they are used correctly.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark



___