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

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


I hope you didn't think I've neglected you, but I did want to let my recent 
post to Mark sink in before responding to your gracious note of 8/21.


> Greetings Ham,
>
> I would never discourage you from speaking on whatever topis
> interests you.  I didn't mean for you not to address 'witnessing'.
> (Ohhh, the word was 'note' not 'not'.  Sorry. I corrected the mistype
> in a subsequent post.)  Quite the opposite, I do think it is where we
> can find some common ground.  And I have not properly presented
> Ms. Albahari's case for no-self or her unique introduction of
> "subjective awareness".   I only post the quotes that I do because
> I think they present an interesting perspective.  I cannot help wanting
> to share some of her points, but that is not the same as presenting her
> complete,thought-out hypothesis.  She offers her theory not as fact,
> but as starting point for further discussion on 'witnessing/awareness'
> which she feels does represent the Buddhist Science of Mind, and
> that has been neglected in the West.
>
> I do deny an autonomous self, but so many times you have written
> things where I think you are definitely describing my experience.
> It might be that this "subjective witnessing" that Ms. Albahari presents
> is exactly where my agreement with what you are presenting aligns
> with the experiences you are presenting.  And it's been informative
> and a relief to review her investigation.  I believe it would be correct,
> to state that Ms. Albahari presents that the 'self' is built FROM the
> subjective witnessing experience.  She eventually presents that the
> concept of awareness/witnessing as having an independent reality
> that is not constructed and therefore not illusory.  Yet it is unbounded,
> which is also a requirement of an autonomous self, so not such a self.

Ms. Albahari would appear to be somewhat ambivalent on this issue, despite 
her
allegiance to the Buddhist tradition of no-self.  But if, as you say, she 
concludes her analysis by presenting the concept of awareness/witnessing as 
having an independent reality, this is acceptable to me as the "free Self". 
(Incidentally, I'm ignoring "constructed and therefore not illusory" because 
it's a rhetorical expression that really has no meaning in an ontological 
context.)

> RMP's "cutting edge" may well be this subjective witnessing.  Yes,
> that does sound correct!  So while Hume, James, Damasio, Dennet
> and Flanagan may deny all aspects of the self or identifying them
> with the bundle of thoughts &etc., RMP may be more inline with
> Ms. Albahari and the Buddhist's "subjective witnessing".  I have been
> thinking about this.  How RMP calls static quality all that can be
> conceptualized which marks a relationship with consciousness.
> What can that relationship be???  Btw, the Buddhist identifies this
> experience, experienced directly, as the pre-nibbana experience.

Yes, I take "cutting edge of reality" to mean not only subjective witnessing 
(proprietary awarenss) but the sculpting or shaping of objective reality. 
This may be extending the function of experience beyond what Pirsig 
intended, but I am persuaded that experience is not simply a passive 
response to sensory data, but the "active conversion" of value sensibility 
into the forms and properties of objective phenomena.  It is my belief that 
the laws and principles that apply to a self-supporting system are imbued in 
Value itself, and that it is experience which configures our construct of 
the physical universe in accordance with these parameters.

Admittedly, this is a "heavy" concept to throw out in a sentence or two, but 
the bottom line is that physical reality is no less "illusory" than your 
ineffable self.  You can talk "patterns" until you're blue in the face, but 
it won't explain existence as a comprehensible ontology.  You spoke of 
"reification" some time ago.  What is a pattern but a reified idea or 
precept?  If everything is nothing more than a patterned idea, what, pray 
tell, is the fundamental reality?  Mr. Prisig would like us to believe it's 
Quality.  He elevates DQ to the supreme level and reduces everything else to 
a static pattern of Quality and -- Eureka! -- he's got a metaphysics.  But 
metaphysics is more than a euphemistic paradigm.  And "pattern" is only a 
convenient fudge-word that avoids having to posit a workable thesis.

> This is my second reading, and I think it can quite sustain a third 
> reading.
> It is quite a book!   Anyway, I would be happy to find some common
> ground with your philosophic point-of-view, partly because I have felt
> some agreement, and partly because I admire and respect you.  But
> please do not confuse my meager presentation of Ms. Albahari's work
> with its entirety.  I think she is an amazing thinker and has beautifully
> presented her ideas in this book.  I would not want to discredit her
> very interesting project.
>
> Not to worry, while my self has proven to be false, I am witness to the
> most miraculous patterns the mind can dream up.  That's not such a
> tragic loss.

If your self has proven to be false, are you then bearing "false witness"? 
;-)

Marsha, I have no desire to discredit Albahari (whose book I haven't read), 
or any other philosopher, for that matter.  I know her insights inspire you, 
and inspiration is what fuels the fire of intellectual debate.  Recently 
I've had similar experiences off-line with two former MD participants.  One 
of them, Tim, besieged me for weeks with quotes from a book by an obscure 
philosopher named Howison.  He was so enthusiastic about this author's 
theory, so convinced it had something in common with Essentialism, that I 
finally gave in and purchased the book from Amazon.  The upshot was 
disappointing for both of us; I didn't find Howison's theory compatible with 
my philosophy, and Tim couldn't persuade me to revise Essentialism by 
incorporating the author's premises.

Call me stubborn, if you must, but having gone through the process of 
working out a personal philosophy, it takes more than the excitement of an 
erstwhile correspondent to change my convictions.  And while I do believe we 
have some common ground to work on, Marsha, it's not yet clear whether our 
differences are fundamental or only semantic.

Meantime, it's my pleasure to hear your views and share in your 
excitement -- even if it means having to reinterpret some of your 
conclusions.

All the best,
Ham