Joseph Polanik wrote:
Cayuse wrote:Joseph Polanik wrote:Cayuse wrote:Joseph Polanik wrote:I certainly seem to be present whenever I am self-referencing. why should I conclude that I am not?Can you show this "experiencer" to yourself?as I just said, I seem to be present whenever I am self-referencing. that's the showing.There's no *showing* without a show-er.how is this claim different from the claim that there is no experiencing without an experiencer; or, that there is no storytelling without a storyteller?
Identify the show-er as an aspect of the data of experience, and then you will have your "showing". Your comment "I seem to be present whenever I am self-referencing" doesn't identify the show-er as an aspect of the data of experience, and it never will, since your putative "show-er" is nonsensical. Therefore there is no "showing", whatever may "seem" to be the case for you. This "seeming" is nothing more than a consequence of the error of reifying the "experiencer" due to the way that language is used.
========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
