Vikorr, the point Fresco and I have been making about the ontological status of "I" is a point you have not grasped yet. Until then further discussion, on this topic at least, will be fruitless. You don't have to accept the perspective to understand it--although I'm not sure of that: perhaps to understand it IS to accept it.
Hi JL,
Yes, more than likely to 'understand it', as you put it, is to accept it. You forget though, that Philosophy is only an argument. An argument does not make it right.
By the way, you are quite right, that without "I", there can be no argument over free will. I happen to disagree with you on the existance of "I", just as I disagree with you over whether there is free will or not (although such disagreement may depend on how each defines the word 'free').
Now, no-one has actually bothered to explain the philosophy behind the non existance of "I", so I don't really know what you are talking about. (I'm sure it's been explained/debated in these forums before). However, I've little doubt that there will be flaws in the argument (even if the argument 'makes sense')...because philosophical arguments are merely arguments of perspectives of what is, attempting to make sense of what is. They aren't simply what is.
Personally, I can't see any perspect that can eliminate "I", nor free will.
Vikorr, I want to apologize for the dismissive tone of my last post. It was intended to sound as it does. We'll talk tomorrow. I want to work on the notion that "realization" of the non-existence of a subject of experience is more than a philosophical "argument." Tomorrow; it's bed time for this geezer.
Hi JL,
There's no need to apologise (though thanks for the sentiments). I understood where you were coming from, but just thought you had overlooked the fact that no-one had actually explained their belief in the non existance of "I"
vikorr,
(Having returned I would add) ...It is not a question of "belief" in the "non-I" ....IT either
sees it or IT doesn't ! ....I am using "IT" to stand for a
second order observer which sees that "I" or "I's" are contructed by social context. Next time "you" indulge in an internal dialogue or circling thoughts (with the body on automatic), or next time "you" dream some bizarre context for "yourself" IT might suddenly recognize the mythical nature of a coherent "I".
Ah...but of course there is resistance to "loss" of self-integrity....the point is that you cannot lose what you haven't got !
For example Gurdjieff writes
Quote:"Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every deisre, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs o the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foudnation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I's, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking 'I.' And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.
Welcome back, Fresco.
Nietzsche--like Buddhism--also rejects the notion of a UNITARY "I." To him we are a multiplicity of (often) competing drives and, I think, of a culturally constituted orchestration of feelings and sensations. The notion of an "I", however, is generally necessary as a symbolic locus of this plurality. But it is fictional. Saying that the ego-self is necessary is not the same thing as saying it is real. We live by means of all kinds of fictions. Our spiritual life, however, requires that we realize the nature of what is happening and what is real and what is delusion.
Hi JL
Question for you, are you saying that "I" is necessary but not real?
Exactly, like cause and effect, necessary--good to think with--but not actual "things" in Nature.
Hi JL
Well, while I still disagree with the non -I premise, at least the overall outlook does not do any damage/is harmless.
Hi Fresco
Quote:It is not a question of "belief" in the "non-I" ....IT either sees it or IT doesn't ! ....I am using "IT" to stand for a second order observer which sees that "I" or "I's" are contructed by social context. Next time "you" indulge in an internal dialogue or circling thoughts (with the body on automatic), or next time "you" dream some bizarre context for "yourself" IT might suddenly recognize the mythical nature of a coherent "I"
Sorry to say, it is only a belief. You cannot argue away human awareness, because any attempt to do so is done through human awareness. Awareness necessitates "I" (though perhaps not to the degree that most people think)
Vikorr, you say that "awareness necessitates 'I'". Is this not the Cartesian notion that thinking cannot exist without a thinker and therefore the former is proof of the latter? That there must be an agent of awareness, as opposed to there just being awareness and thinking, is the basis of the delusion of "I". If a deed requires a doer, then every actions is performed twice because the doer is doing itself as well as the deed in question. Our grammar containing the subject-object split and its necessary unity is the source of your error here.
By the way, when one meditates one perceives objects, sensations, thoughts, etc. Among these "objects" of thought one will also have the tacit notion that he is experiencing a subject of such objects, and he will think that this subject is an object BEHIND all these "experiences". But he will eventually see that this subject, "I," is only another among the experiences occurring. The "I" is not something apart from and behind experience; it's another experience. But to think about experience in a "grammatically" coherent way we postulate (tacitly of course) the experiencER of experiences. There is only experience or experiencing.
vikkor,
There are at least two alternatives to Descartes cogito.
(1) The "levels of consciousness" route.... supported by esotericists such as Gurdjieff and spiritual thinkers such as Krishanamurti. "Scientific" support is offered by "second order cybernetics" (Von Foerster) and "quantum consciousness" studies (Hameroff) which attempt to utilise the non-locality findings of QM.
(2) The "deflationist route" in which "cognition" iis deemed to be an epiphenomenon of "all life processes" and where "self consciousess" is a sub-aspect of "language use". (Maturana and Dennett).
These two are not necessarily exclusive because "science" has moved on from the simplistic linear causal mode implied by deterministic considerations of "the will".
Fresco, I appreciate Maturana's view (1) of cognition as an "epiphenomenon' of ALL life processes as opposed to the operation of some idealist's notion of Mind (Mind vs Matter constitute a false dichtomy: mind and the life processes of the "material world" are inherently one), and (2) the notion that "I" (self-consciousness) is an aspect of "language use" or grammar (the subject-object split).
What is meant by the "deflationist route"?
"Deflationism" is a term used in AI to imply that "self consciousness" as a distinct level of "thought" is a myth.....or that the explanation of "consciousness" is a pseudoproblem (i.e. what Chalmers calls the "hard problem" is no problem at all). On the one hand this is a reductionist stance on the part of Turing (et al) but on another it opens the door for Capra and Maturana to introduce "ecology" as an alternative "scientific paradigm" to the traditional norm which has prediction and control (by "selves") as its driving force.
I don't recall Bateson's "Ecology of Mind" thesis, but do Capra and Maturana make reference to it?
It DOES seem that "self" consciousness is just another kind of consciousness, but one that is confused: it is awareness of a mirage of sorts.
Hi JLÂ…can you please clarify whether or not you believe in Human Awareness?
Quote:thinking cannot exist without a thinker
Quote:and therefore the former is proof of the latter
Quote:By the way, when one meditates one perceives objects, sensations, thoughts, etc. Among these "objects" of thought one will also have the tacit notion that he is experiencing a subject of such objects, and he will think that this subject is an object BEHIND all these "experiences". But he will eventually see that this subject, "I," is only another among the experiences occurring. The "I" is not something apart from and behind experience; it's another experience.
Quote:self consciousess" is a sub-aspect of "language use"
There's a statement that would make for circular arguments if ever I saw one.
By the way, please excuse me if I haven't read all the books on the subject that you two have (so a lot of the things you said were referring to things I have no knowledge of). Truthfully, the subject doesn't seem to have much practical purpose to me, except as a subject of curiosity.
Vikorr I'm afraid you misread my points. If you try again note that for the most part my intended meaning was the opposite of your understanding.
Quote:Vikorr I'm afraid you misread my points. If you try again note that for the most part my intended meaning was the opposite of your understanding.
Well there's a bit of a problem then, for I had no understanding of what you wrote :wink:
By the way, I'm still curious about what your philosophy (of non I) makes of human curiosity & humour?
There is curiosity and laughter but no "I" who is curious and amused. That is very difficult to appreciate given that we are deeply wedded to our grammatical view of experience. Nietzsche called grammar the metaphysics of the masses.
vikorr wrote
Quote: Truthfully, the subject doesn't seem to have much practical purpose to me
The words "purpose" and "me" here say it all !
You misread me a little. I said 'curiosity and humour', not 'curiosity and amusement' (amusement is reactionary, and doesn't paint as clear a picture as humour)
It's fairly obvious that organised thought is a grammatical construct. How that eliminates an "I", I don't see...the existence of language allows us to more clearly define "I", and it has no doubt added to the "Intelligence" that we humans experience. However, to eliminate "I", we must be purely reactionary agents to the world around. Nothing must come of our own accord.
The reason I chose curiosity & humour, is that both are separate from experience/survival need, and come of our own accord. Curiosity has gone from "This happened, therefore I react and do this..." to "I wonder what he's talking about...I wonder why this is so...I wonder what those bright lights in the night sky are...etc etc"....This debate about the existence of I for example. I can see no use whatsoever to believe in the nonexistance of I...it has nothing to do with survival and instinct, and it's debate requires both curiosity and the immagination. It is done of my own accord.
Of course...you could argue curiosity as a survival instinct...hence the reason I chose non survival curiosity subjects....because human curiosity goes beyond that.
Were I to make a joke about the subject (set aside the fact that it doesn't seem to have much inherently amusing about it), a joke in and of itself, shows a level of awareness (You still haven't answered if you believe in human awareness) of a subject that has gone beyond mere survival instincts. Further, humour isn't solely to grammar construct (otherwise Silent Movies would never have been funny), and as we can see here, the ability to take the mickey out of life shows an awareness of what we are doing, the purpose for which we do it...and the silliness of life.
That is why I said awareness necessitates "I". That we are aware, and are able to act on that awareness (rather than instinct), and to make it into something new, of our own creation (eg humour) is something of our (that awareness') own accord.
