Happiness in relation to the 'committee meeting' model of 'self'

Good question! ...not language because that segments "reality" and Self is deemed to be holistic. But maybe not "sensation" either because this also implies a dualism of observer-observed. The experience is "qualitative" in the sense that the vista of "ordinary experience" is viewed from a vantage point with what in normal parlance would be an oxymoron... detached compassion . Such a phrase is representative of the resolution of those dichotomies which characteristic of selves (small s).

Actually memes are just the new fashion way of speaking in functions and socially shared cultural algorithms...it goes deeper then memes to explain it Fresco.

Hi Fresco,
I just read 'Siddartha' by Hesse. I don't know, maybe I missed the point but I thought what was in it was quite obvious?

Well, recent reading of mine (Merlau-Ponty) suggests that it cannot even be expressed in "sensation" because the latter is merely an expression of co-extension of "self" with "world". It is further suggested that "meditation" is an artificial mode of "coping" and that the concept of transcendental ego thereby "experienced" has no significant ontological status, even allowing for its ineffable nature.

Remember that the Gurdjieff view of "higher consciousness" is described in quasi-,religious language (aspiring to become like "the Absolute"), yet even he resorted to neologisms (Armenianish I was told) in his own published work. Either way, it suggests language issues even for those like him who claimed existence for transcendental self.

Thanks fresco, that's interesting. What 'significant' ontological status were we proposing it had anyway?

Bookmark

The significance might be claimed by those who would argue that "consciousness" is a priori to materiality and that the transcendental self is an expression of such consciousness.

Would they argue that from an experiencial or abstract philosophical basis?

Technically an "idealist philosopher" might hold such a view (Hegel for example). Even physicists like Bohm have moved in that direction (see for example the Bohm Krishnamurti dialogues) but perhaps under the influence of the experiential.

In what ways does Bohm take the self to be a transcendental entity? I thought that Bohm thought the "self" to be a construct of thought, and we as "individuals" do not have "fixed identities", but rather we are always "unfolding" and "who we are" is always revealing itself, but never fixed.

In many cases happiness is a matter of the reality matching the expectations, or even exceeding the expectations in a way that is percieved to be positive.
If the "meeting" is the various aspects of self I would think it is at least conducive to agreement, if not analogous.
But internal conflicts can be associated with happiness, as is the case in situations where we find ourselves having "luxury problems".

If a camel is a horse designed by a comittee.\ my happiness is somewhere along the line of Llama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbPDKHXWlLQ

You are correct that Bohm thought " normal self" was an epiphenomenon of the flux social interaction, but he took the basis of all interaction to be "consciousness". At that point we have the problem of whether we can define such consciousness as "transcendental" because Bohm makes no clear distinction between "physical" and "mental". On the other hand his views are attuned to those of Krishnamurti who certainly advocated "non-judgemental self observation" from a transcendental standpoint. At best we might say that Bohm was in the realms of the "metaphysical", and suffered "professionally" thereby from mainstream physicists.

I am taking the word "transcendental" to imply a metaphysical "standing-back" or "vantage point". The question remains as to whether "the observer" from such a position can still be labelled "self", and it is this point which triggers use of the word "ineffable".

PQ

On your Siddhartha ref, I assume you got the point that both "happiness" and "suffering" were aspects of worldly attachment. It might be useful also to place Siddhartha in the context of Hesse's other writings, one of which (The Prodigy, I think) gives a triumphalist account of suicide. (NB That type of paradigmatic analysis is suggested by Derrida's deconstuctionalism)

Yes I did. Thank you I will look at that.
It's still beyond me as to why hapiness is so often taken to be the 'natural' or 'proper' state of existence.
I am currently reading Uncommon Wisdom by Capra.

I think we should guard against notions of "transcendental self" or, even "true self" serving as a "mystical" stratagem for the perpetuation of ego-self on a sublimated level.
As I understand the "true self" (or Big Mind) referred to by buddhists (at least American buddhists), it is synomous for no-mind or non-self.
I find useful the "transcendental" self only in the "vantage point" sense used by Fresco. In that sense it is essentially an intellectual reference to the Witness-of-phenomena, or, perhaps, the Hindus' metaphorical Atman-representation-of-Brahmin: the universe (or Nature) experiencing itself.

Thanks for that Capra ref. Not yet read it.

Good post. Just clarifying 'vantage point' could mean 'observation point'.

I don't know how much you'd get out of it, Fresco, although it is a good book. Particularly interesting in the way in which it outlines the implications of the non-dualist position for health care etc. although I noticed a few problems.

That one is funny...
Is there any other meaning of "self" but a specific converged point of observation from nature to itself from a certain angle ? And what is it not true in there ? What it even means to say that it is n´t true ?
That´s why there are so much misunderstandings around the place...people lack precision in what they speak and convey...and then bang ! Anarchy rules...