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

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Mark [Marsha mentioned] --


>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".

Mark, I welcome your suggestion for a new approach to what can so easily 
default into an argument over semantics.  However, I'm not so sure that 
"logic" per se --especially the logic of math -- is the key to a solution. 
For one thing, logic applies only to "defined" entities and causal effects, 
whereas subjectivity, selfness, mind, awareness, and thoughts are 
non-quantifiable phenomena whose relation to objects and events is not 
clearly defined.  I've always maintained that it is the "concept" which is 
necessary for understanding, and where a concept is muddled linguistics and 
logic only compound the confusion.

To me, conceptualization begins with what is "self-evident" and proceeds 
from there. That's why Marsha's (Albahari's) stance on the self is 
particularly frustrating.  It is one thing to say that conscious 
sensibility, including emotional feelings, involves a series of interrelated 
patterns of varying quality or value.  It's quite another to deny the very 
agent whose identity IS this sensible awareness.

I think Marsha comes closest to concurring with us when she refers to the 
Buddhist's "subjective witnessing", as she herself concedes.  To witness 
something requires a witnessing agent.  We may question whether this agent 
is a "real entity" or not, in  epistemological terms, but can we deny that 
it's the proprietary locus and function of all experience?  Descartes put it 
most simply when he said: "I think, therefore I am."  It was his conclusion 
that because I (my self) am the thinker and knower, my self exists.

>From what I gather, the only reason there so much acrimony here over this 
assertion is that Mr. Pirsig, in order to make his Quality thesis 
consistent, found it necessary to deny the validity of subjects and objects. 
And, since this denial also has the sanction of Zen mysticism, it has been 
tacitly accepted as fundamental to the MoQ.  Only lately has it become 
apparent that there are no grounds for either a "free agent" or "moral 
responsibility" in such an ontology.  Instead, Freedom is assumed to be what 
DQ is, while Morality is intrinsic to the universe or the "social 
collective".

> 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 don't quite follow the logic of reversing the Protagoras axiom "Man is the 
measure of all things" to "things are the measure of man."  The fact that 
man's world is "provided to him" does not make the world a measure of his 
values or behavior.  On the other hand, eliminating the agency of value 
denies man the sensible realization on which morality is based and IMO makes 
life meaningless.

[snip]
> 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?

If you consider the Self (sensibility) primary to experiential existence, 
then the brain and nervous system may be viewed as the "tools" actualized by 
the Self to integrate and organize sense data in conformance with a 
relational space/time universe.  This is not possible, of course, unless the 
Self is a free agent with the power to act independently of causal and 
genetic determinism.

> Best regards, I enjoy the posts.

Thanks, Mark.  I always appreciate your insights.

Essentially yours,
Ham