Re: Physics and Metaphysics - systems and environment

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Hi Dan,

The "self-world relationship" occurs only when there is a self/other
dualism, where we identifiy self and thereby identify non-self (i.e.,
other). If the we take the world to be undifferentiated (including a lack of
identification of self), then we are foregoing the fundamental self/other
dualism and hence foregoing any meaningfulness of speaking of a self-world
relationship.

I suppose I can imagine how one could alternate sequentially between these
perspectives (models, perhaps, as you say), but I do not think one can have
it both ways simultaneously, where there is self/other differentiation and
also there is no differentiation. That to me seems incoherent. The 'models',
so to speak, are incommensurable in my view.

This seems very straightforward to me.....which makes me suspect that
perhaps I am misinterpreting either/both of you?

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:38 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Physics and Metaphysics - systems and environment
>
>
> Tim, JohnM,
>
> I'm butting in here...hope OK...
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> Is to equivocate - voice equally? -  perhaps to suggest that
> the self-world relation is *complex*, in terms of requiring
> two or more models, descriptions or representations, for
> which we might use three like 1) differentiated, separate,
> apart, fractionable, 2) undifferentiated, unified, whole,
> unfractionable 3) neither/both 1 or/and 2, apart and/or
> whole. The choice of model(s) then might be determined by
> context, as in functional purpose or task at hand.
>
> ??
>
> This is how "I" see it...or should "I" say how "we" see it?
> :-)
>
> Dan