|
JohnM,
I am not sure what
you mean by "exaggerate dualism".
My assertion is
that in the act of any manner of making an identification of self, there is a
conceptual partitioning of the world (the undifferentiated whole) into self
and not-self (i.e., environment). So, I consider that for there to be something
called a "1st person interpretation" there is, for that person, a partition of
the whole into self and not-self.
By this I do not
consider personal experience irrelevant. I do not see how that follows. If
I call something "personal experience", then I do consider that "personal" only
has meaning in reference to the concept of self. Thus, whether
explicitly or tacitly, I have partitioned the world into that which is self and
that which is not-self. This in no way says that personal experience is somehow
irrelevant.
Going back
to the quote Judith gave from Life Itself, the dualism between self and
not self is "the most fundamental dualism, which all others presuppose."
I feel that
attempts to imagine that one can consider oneself (for lack of a
better word) unified into an undifferentiated whole, yet also maintain or
assert some reference to self ("personal", "1st person", "direct
access", etc.) is to equivocate on this dualism.
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
as I emphasize the "MY" it means simply
that it is my opinion, not necessarily matching the general
usage.
If you exaggerate 'dualism', I think you are
in danger of falling into solipsism. (There is a long and multidsciplinary
discussion on the Journal of Consciousness Science Online, mostly philo-and
psych- about solipsism and I would not like to fall into it. )
(Of course there is also a lot to it what has
been said at again another list that a "unit" implies at least two.
)
Do you negate any "1st person" interpretation?
Do we have direct access to the totality of nature? Is personal experience
irrelevant? Or are you complacent in dualism?
Semantics (the relational study of symbols)
slips easily into syntax (the relational study of symbol
relations).
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:07
PM
Subject: Re: Physics and Metaphysics -
systems and environment
JM:
Of course, it is. I am not speaking about A observing B
(systems) in "physical"(!) interaction. Observation IMO is acceptance of
information, maybe within ONE natural system as in other cases callable:
(self?)reorganization. "MY" mental aspect within the "environment"
(totality) is enriched and changed.
No dualism. No system-interaction.
For
me, any use of the term "my" implies a self/other dualism. Otherwise, it would seem to be
quite meaningless.
Regards,
Tim
|