[Wittrs] Clarity is Arising
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:44:53 -0500
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>just because a disagreement is expressed in language doesn't mean that
>>there is no disagreement except as to the choice of which language to
>>use to express a pre-existing agreement.
>Quite right nor am I making THAT assertion. I am saying, rather, that
>it just happens to be the case in this situation.
>>I'll let Cayuse speak for himself; but, I believe that there is a real
>>disagreement not just a difference between the language we use in
>>which to express an underlying agreement.
>Okay, what is it? Do either of you deny the occurrence of mental
>phenomena (other than how you want to name them)
neither of us denies that there is experience or that there are mental
phenomena; but, we disagree as to a few cases; for example, whether
there is an experience of self-awareness.
>that we don't have uses for words like "self" and "I" and "me" in the
>context of referencing such phenomena?
the issue is not whether these words are used; but, whether they have
referents when used. even the simple report 'I experience' has been
problematic.
>Cayuse thinks he is arguing that, if we dig down deeply enough, we find
>no self in the "undercurrent of experience", but agrees that we think
>we are selves and can refer to ourselves thusly in the same range of
>circumstances that you think we can.
>Cayuse thinks, however, that if you really drill down you fall out of
>language and can say nothing more except that he persists in thinking
>we can name the spot we fall out ("the all", "the microcosm", etc.) and
>that some, like Wittgenstein, have done so intelligibly (by noting the
>unintelligibility of trying to do so).
since it appears that Cayuse might be in the process of reformulating
his position, I'll let him address these points for himself.
>You think that the very fact that there is experience implies an
>experiencer (as do I, by the way), but Cayuse says that is part of the
>illusion because there really is no experiencer to be found. Well, I
>agree that the experiencer is a construct but then so is a notion of
>experience so both are constructed notions. Insofar as they are, the
>one implies the other, and insofar as the "real" reality is outside or
>beyond the construct, nothing can be said (though Cayuse perversely
>continues to hang onto the language of referencing here).
I generally wouldn't say that the I is constructed; but, rather that it
is generated. in either case, however, the important questions are
whether that which is constructed/generated is something or nothing at
all; and, whether that which is constructed/generated is capable of
self-referencing.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
