[lit-ideas] Re: I
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:02:56 -0500
JL:
> Geary thinks it's "I" _simpliciter_, while I say it's, on occasion, best
> translated as 'self' (specially in the Paralogism 5$3).
Once again JL trips over his own gambits. Geary never thinks _simpliciter_.
"I' in my vocabulary references the Universe. Had JL ever bothered to read
my monograph _"I See," Eye Said_ (c) 1978, (published by Reed College --
thanks, RP), he would know that I do not admit to the existence of the self
except as a kind of short-hand way of referencing the Universe. 'I' as
Peter Junger can prove, am my shoes. And my socks and my feet. And dirt
itself! To think that 'I' am just this here little knot of awareness is
ridiculous. I am the egg man. I am the walrus. I am George Bush! Oh,
fuck! There's goes my day. Despite that, I still assert that there is
nothing that is not me. I'm sure you think you're you and I'm not you, but
you're wrong. Not only am I you, but you're me. How do you like them
apples? This is nothing new. This is ten thousand year old mystic musings
that were as hard a sell ten thousand years ago as today. 'I' is so
"obvious" that very few understand it. Well, so what? Nothing. Nothing
depends on our understanding. That's the beauty of existence.
Jeers,
MG
P.S. I don't do Paralogisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
