[MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Would you like another potato chip?


Marsha 




On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in
> this two dimensional web,
> 
> Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works.
> Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we
> can logically create.
> 
> When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential
> circle.  He defines emotions as indefinable.  Why are they
> indefinable?  Because they are emotions!  I am not sure how far this
> logic will take one.  Logic is structure, it is something we build on
> assumptions.  Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the
> atom.  We always begin in the middle of these.
> 
> Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create
> definitions.  So we logically begin with "that which creates
> definitions".  Our assumption is therefore that there is something
> which results in definitions and start the logical process.  We can
> call this assumption anything we like.
> 
> From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level
> math, or down into mystical realities.  We can define such results as
> Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc.
> Let us assume that all these things are what we have.  So I will
> simplify all those words into one: Reality.  Therefore in the first
> instance, we have "that which creates Reality".  I am of course
> referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our
> "sensibilities".
> 
> While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not
> agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things".  I
> would say that "all things are the measure of man".  By this, I mean
> that man operates within a world that is provided him.  Man's
> measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements.  Man
> harnesses these things and uses them for his own good.  He cannot
> create them.
> 
> I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject
> title seems to point to Marsha.  The "agent" I would assume is similar
> to Ham's agent.  I did not have the time to read the quotes that
> Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions,
> and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra
> written in English.  I will say, however, that I disagree that the
> Self can create thoughts or action.  I therefore prefer Ham's
> "witness".  If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal
> connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and
> thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it.  For
> example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts?
> Where does this First Action lie?
> 
> Best regards, I enjoy the posts.
> 
> Mark
> 


 
___