A Rational Discussion.

Greetings..

I agree to the terms you have outlined. I had not considered ‘self’ as a candidate for Wikipedia reference, as it is the intention of this discussion for you and I to reach a common understanding of “how to understand self”. As I was pondering your nicely written exposition, I began to wonder about terms like ‘mind’ or ‘psyche’, and I recalled previous discussions with others, where there were great disagreements over the meanings of terms such as these. I chose Wikipedia as an arbiter of intractable differences of meanings, not as an authority but as an open format for collaborations of the common usage of the word. But, I will accept the use of our individual ‘linguistic maps’, trusting the intention of our common understanding to resolve what differences might arise.

As I understand the agreed to question:
“How are we to understand self?”

It is interesting that the question, as agreed, does not seek to define ‘self’, rather it seeks to determine the ‘method for understanding’ self. This presupposes the existence of self, and may be problematic for some observers, but.. it is possible that the discussion could reveal the presupposition to be invalid, and I am interested in continuing with the presupposition intact. The simplest method, by my understanding, would be to discard that which is ‘not self’ (note: I am amusing myself with the turn of a phrase). But, to do so would require a working definition of ‘self’, from which to be certain we do not discard self while trying to understand it. It is my understanding that the term ‘self’ is most commonly considered as applicable to an individualized tangible being, one with the mental capacity to understand that it uniquely observable and uniquely experiencable in relation to the environment in which it exists.. that it to say, it is aware of its own existence relative to all that exists. While those words point to a point of reference, they do not engage a process of understanding the variables that any single point of reference might harbor within the privacy of its own mind.

I am using terms like ‘existence’ and ‘mind’ without a sense of agreement between us as to how those terms relate to a common understanding of self. I sense that there is a general consensus that thoughts and memories, among other occurrences, are processed through a personal medium we refer to as ‘mind’, being careful to allow for a collective version of that same medium. Additionally, I sense that there is a general consensus that the term existence relates to any tangible matter, or and quantifiable effect by intangible forces, such as the effects of gravity. Considering these variables, I will ask:

What is your preferred meaning of the term ‘existence’, relative to this discussion?

Be well, my friend.. and, interested participants..

Existence: a state of fact of existing. Being.

Hey Tzu,

I'm actually going to start with your question first as it provides a foundation for the response to your proposed definition of self.

On The Nature of Existence

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

What is your preferred meaning of the term ‘existence’, relative to this discussion?

I am really finding it difficult to simply define existence separate from a "something" or "what" that exists. I could use words like "being" or "is" but that would be merely appealing to synonym and not giving a definition or providing an understood meaning. In order to make progress on giving a meaning I feel compelled to appeal to one's immediate conscious experience. That which exists for someone is experienced by them. So the meaning of existence is to be experienced. I can't help but also go into my understanding of knowing versus believing. I know something when that thing is present within my experience. When the experience is absent, I do not know it, but I have a weak belief based on the memory of direct experience. In looking at a Red Delicious apple and seeing that its skin is primarily red, I know that the apple is red. When the apple is absent from my experience, I believe the apple is red. When I am in the midst of experiencing an apple, I know that it (or at least something) exists. In the absence of experiencing the apple, I neither know nor not-know that the apple exists. So the knowledge of existence is predicated upon an active conscious experience. In this phenomenological account of existence, the term non-existence is to be interpreted as never being possible to have a conscious experience of. But in order to know what could never exist within experience requires a deep and profound understanding of experience itself.

Let me refocus on the question. The term "existence" is a second order term, incomplete without being given an argument: "Existence of (a what)" "Existence of an apple". I cannot know (with certainty) of something's existence without a conscious experience of that thing, and I can never know of somethings non-existence, so the negation of existence is a nonsense construction. As for whether or not something exists separate from experience, I also cannot know. Since non-existence cannot be known, this brings us to two distinct meanings of existence. The option on the left is that existence is identical to conscious experience, something exists when we experience and non-existence refers to non-experience. On the right existence refers to something's presence within a universe beyond consciousness and we consciously experience a limited portion of this universe. Most people take the definition on the right, that things exist separate from and beyond our experience of them. But I have found this disposition personally untenable.

In my search to become honest about what I know, I do not know what exists beyond my present experience, causing me to lean to the left. Similarly I am not able to completely get behind the definition that existence is identical to conscious experience because the consistency of my experience between separate experiences strongly implies the likely hood of an external world, and this causes me to lean to the right. So I am left not knowing how to pick between the two understandings. If I am asked what I am certain of, the meaning collapses to the left, equating existence with being consciously experienced. If I am asked what is probabilistically true, the meaning collapses to the right, that of there being an external world beyond experience which casts shape and form into experience. Needless to say, I have learned to navigate my experience regardless of the truth of the matter, which lends weight to the interpretation on the left, that the belief in existence beyond conscious experience is inconsequential.

While this may seem like a long winded and meandering response, and some might even accuse me of being a Sicilian with this dizzying intellect, I find that the meaning of a word or term is molded and shaped out of our experience. Because existence is so tied to experience, I have had to give an account of my experience with experience. When asked to be certain, I swing left, when asked for probability, I swing right. When asked how I see and do things, I swing left with the provision that I act like I swing right in order to cope with changing experience. To me, existence is fundamentally tied to my conscious experience.

Tzu, with respect to existence, do you swing left or right, or would you like to put forward your own differing account?

I do think the entertainment of this question, the nature of existence, is important to answer for our contextual question "How are we to understand self?". As you said, in order to understand self we first must give a definition of it and answer the question "What is self?" "Is" being an existential predicate, we must then turn to everyone's philosophic mentor Bill Clinton and ask what the meaning of 'is' is. I have found two distinct and relevant meanings. Existence within consciousness which is a direct knowledge leading towards certainty, and Existence within some ultimately unknown world or universe which partially appears within our consciousness, leading towards probabilistic knowledge. I find that this dual understanding of existence also leads to a dual understanding of self: self as object within consciousness and self as subject of consciousness.

At this point I would like to apologize to everyone for my verbosity. I am compelled by an internal sense of speaking accurately and I don't know how to speak both accurately and concisely. I ask that you all take an intermission and refill your popcorn buckets now, for we are about half way through my discourse.

In turning to Tzu's proposed understanding of self

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

It is my understanding that the term ‘self’ is most commonly considered as applicable to an individualized tangible being, one with the mental capacity to understand that it uniquely observable and uniquely experiencable in relation to the environment in which it exists.. that it to say, it is aware of its own existence relative to all that exists. While those words point to a point of reference, they do not engage a process of understanding the variables that any single point of reference might harbor within the privacy of its own mind.

I am using terms like ‘existence’ and ‘mind’ without a sense of agreement between us as to how those terms relate to a common understanding of self. I sense that there is a general consensus that thoughts and memories, among other occurrences, are processed through a personal medium we refer to as ‘mind’, being careful to allow for a collective version of that same medium. Additionally, I sense that there is a general consensus that the term existence relates to any tangible matter, or and quantifiable effect by intangible forces, such as the effects of gravity.

I think we all share a similar enough understanding of mind that we can skip that chapter and revisit it later if need be. I've addressed the understanding of existence, at least as I understand it. The proposal for self that you put forward is most similar to my understanding of self as object within consciousness.

Self as Object

This is the understanding of self we build in terms of how we relate to our experience. This self-consctruction is based on "outward looking" and is a probabilistic understanding and accumulates in our memory. We accumulate facts and relationships. X woman is called "mom", Y man is called "dad", this is how they're supposed to behave and interact with me, given that they are my father and mother, etc. Even though I see my face less than 1% of the day, I'll imagine that others see me as the face and incorporate it into my self-construct. This probabilistic self includes everything personal: individual experiences, beliefs, traumas, self-perception of where one fits into the world around them, and so on. This object-self is what animates the body and moves around the world with intention. When we observe others, their behavior and mannerisms, the way their mind moves, we are accumulating a probabilisitic understanding of someone else's object-self. The body is in perpetual sympathy with the mind and body language will betray how a person thinks of themselves and how they view the other people and things in their environment.

In the object-self there is a gradient of self-perception ranging from the personal and individual to the impersonal and universal. On the more impersonal/universal end of the scale, my object-self will form under my identification with being a conscious/subjective entity. Getting narrower, I am a human entity. Getting narrower, I am a male entity. Becoming more personal, I am a 6'3" 380 lb, big boned, half Lebanese, married to a specific person with two young boys, etc entity. The way I move through the world gets colored by these details that I identify myself with and that colors the formation of the object-self that accumulates and is expressed through the body.

Self as Subject

The subject-self is purely universal and impersonal. Every consciousness has the division between the experience and the experiencer. The experiencer is not something we can experience as an object, but we can be the experiencer through having the experience. The subject-self is prior to, continuous through, and lasts past the birth, evolution and death of the object-self. The subject-self is what is able to testify to what is directly experienced and directly perceived. When someone says "I see a chair there", that is the subject-self speaking. Another person can come along and say "I see a chair there too." How these two people relate to the chair, what they think of it and do with it, that is all the domain of the object-self. "I want to take the chair with me." "I want to sell you the chair" These "I's" are object-self I's while the "I see a chair there" "I" is reflective of the subject-self Eye.

The Snake Eating Its Tail

It is the focal point of the attention of the subject-self which constructs, deconstructs, and reconstructs the object-self. An infant's attention is teased outward through tickling the babe, making faces, and exciting noises. As the babe grows into a child and young adult, we keep their attention outwardly focussed and try to correct how they are forming their object-self. As that young adult goes on to form a family of their own, they repeat the cycle, teasing the attention outward and helping to shape the object-self of their children. No knowledge or understanding need be conveyed or oriented towards the subject-self. It does what it does automatically, exist, be, see, know, inform in the moment, and all around support and enable the construction of the object-self.

The concept of the subject-self as I have described it exists as an idea within the object-self. Is this concept reflective of something real? I answer with a resounding yes. The concept would not be able to form without something (or the lack of something) to seed the foundation of the concept. Our object-self is in a perpetual process of being molded and re-molded through what we pay attention to in our experience. Through our upbringing, our attention has been outwardly oriented and the object-self is constructed around our body appearance and relationships to our family, social groups, and local environs. If we reverse the orientation of our attention and look "within" and away from the externals, through meditation, sensory deprivation, isolation, and challenging what anchors our outward attention, then we bring our attention more on the universal and impersonal aspects of ourselves. Beingness, Humanity, Energy, Existence, etc. The continued orientation of our attention inward begins to re-mold the object-self to be a reflection of those qualities.

It takes time, and there is much inertia and mass to de-construct and then re-construct once the orientation of attention is turned around. But the proof is evident in others. It changes the energy-vibes eminating from a person's body and personality. It changes how that body moves through the world and it changes how the speech pattern occurs, what and how people say things. Internally it feels like there is less object-self because we're exchanging probabilistic knowledge that has to be stored in the mind as thought and trading it in for direct experience, which requires little to no mind content. We feel like were moving from an object-self based "I" to a subject-self based Eye. At times we may experience the falling away of the I, leaving behing a pure experience of the Eye. The first time we experience this can be a tremendous shock to the object-self as it is forced to make a discontinuous jump in its evolution.

Rejoinder

I put this forward as my understanding of self, that there are two selves: The I and the Eye. The Eye is akin to the laws of nature, they are what they are and do what they do. The I is like a seed planted, it grows into a tree and develops in the context of the soil and environment around it. The Eye constructs the I the way nature grows a tree. This understanding comes because I have seen with my Eye the nature of the relationship between the I and the Eye. I feel that any understanding of a singular self is necessarily incomplete because of the correlation between the orientation of one's attention and the expressed qualities of the object-self. Outward oriented attention, called Perception, build a heavy and dense objec-self laden with the accumulation of worldly relation. Inward oriented attention, called Introception by Franklin Merrell-Wolfe and Direct Seeing by many others, sheds much of the density and replaces it with the ability for the object-self to reflect the eternal qualities found within the subject-self.

Tzu, you did not make the distinction in self that I am making. Do you feel that this distinction is fair? That there is a valid distinction between consciousness itself and the mind/body that is growing within it leading to the distinction between two kinds of self?

[NightSpirit]

*watches*.........

[Riboflavin]

Ive read all the posts thus far here. Id like to join in but its a little too complicated for me. Most of my spirituality comes from "seeing" or "feeling". Mentally understanding the things i experience is like boxing it in a continual set of 90 degree angles whereas what im looking at is cascading divergent lines that rebound and reform in patterns, the "meaning" being more in the relationship between what im seeing rather than the form of the thing itself. I could probably draw a picture of the true nature of "self" and awareness more easily than i could ever explain it in words.

Reading these posts i definitely think that my mind is not developed enough to contribute meaningfully to this discussion. Well, not that it will stop me from trying.. (maybe)

Greetings..

Hi Topo… clearly, I have waded into a rational discussion that will challenge my simple understandings, so.. I humbly request that you, and others, be patient as I ponder the possible relationships inspired by such an eloquent and well-thought-out presentation.

I appreciate the problems associated with trying to define existence without a ‘widget’ that exists, but that’s where this will be tested, in the absence of “what exists”. By that, I am referring to the claims of existent experiences, unverifiable by other than the claimant, and believed by others only by their preference to do so. The veracity of the claimant’s testimony and anyone’s inclination to accept such as valid is not verification. I am inclined to agree with the likelihood of common experiences, i.e.: eating an apple, but not the taste; seeing an image, but not the meaning; hearing a sound, but not its interpretation, etc… if my meaning is not clear, please remind me to do better.

You have used the term ‘apple’ to relate varying degrees of information derived from a reference to the apple. I will try to do the same. As I am seeing an apple, touching it, smelling it, tasting it, hearing its crisp crunch, I am knowing, or know, the apple exists, much as you have suggested. In the absence of physical apples I cannot affirm that apples exist, but I have a very consistent history and a generally favorable depth of ‘apple experiences’ that suggest that apples do exist. This “understanding”, that there are apples existent but not within my field of direct experience, is what i mean when I use the term “knowledge”. It is my understanding that “knowledge” is directly related to experience, but is not experience itself.

Experience is that relationship I have with conditions that are not ‘me’, ‘me’ being ‘that’ which is ‘experiencing’ the relationships. This is nearer to the topic of our discussion than I had expected so early in the discussion’s evolution, but.. a central consideration of “how are we to understand self”, will necessarily be a function of experience. It is reasonable to opine that ‘self experiences self’, but that opinion feels less than authentic, as I can reason its relationship with the meaning of the cliché, “a hammer cannot hit itself”. What my experience has revealed to me, is that I experience ‘me’ through relationships with conditions that appear to be separate from me, the actuality of that appearance being a central issue with the topic of our discussion. The word experience, as I understand it, suggests that the individual point of reference I label as “me” or “I” interacts in some discernable way with a condition that is not ‘me’. At the very least, there is an interaction with ‘something’ discernable, and whether that ‘something’ is internal or external to ‘me’ will evolve with the discussion.

At this point, I would like to explore what you term “belief”, and its relationship with ‘that’ which is me. In the instances of knowing and knowledge, belief is justified by reason of experience. A recollection of those experiences, though discounted by the potential for inaccuracy of recollection and for biased or selective memory recall, serves to refamiliarize me with an experience now passed, the accuracy of which may be questioned. Another common use of the term belief is an appeal to reason, where propositions are put forth and the observer is asked to ‘reason’ the validity of a proposition based on information with which they have ‘no direct knowledge’. I do not suggest that this process, the appeal to reason, does not yield meaningful information that might lead to actual knowledge. I do suggest that an appeal to reason can result in a belief that cannot be verified. Hence, it is my practice to attempt to recreate an experience, closely approximate with the proposed conditions of an appeal to reason. From which I ‘reason’ an appropriate relationship within the structure of my understandings.

You have asked: Tzu, with respect to existence, do you swing left or right, or would you like to put forward your own differing account?

To which I reply: Both. As you have so capably described existence, albeit from differing perspectives, it is my experience that, as the ‘point of reference’ for such perspectives, both are easily experiencable by intending, applying, or allowing awareness to be focused in either or both of your described perspectives of existence. By now, you may have noticed that I am inclined to reserve judgment on many issues, in favor of ‘waiting and seeing’. I sense, from your account of leaning both left and right, that you might be inclined to let either the situation or your inherent nature reveal which way to lean, or even if leaning is appropriate. I am similarly inclined.

You have also asked: Tzu, you did not make the distinction in self that I am making. Do you feel that this distinction is fair? That there is a valid distinction between consciousness itself and the mind/body that is growing within it leading to the distinction between two kinds of self?

To which I reply: I must reference a pivotal observation in your presentation of object and subject selfs; “Through our upbringing, our attention has been outwardly oriented and the object-self is constructed around our body appearance and relationships to our family, social groups, and local environs. If we reverse the orientation of our attention and look "within" and away from the externals, through meditation, sensory deprivation, isolation, and challenging what anchors our outward attention, then we bring our attention more on the universal and impersonal aspects of ourselves. Beingness, Humanity, Energy, Existence, etc.”. I am drawn to ‘that’ which has the capacity to “reverse the orientation of our attention”, that is my understanding of self, the ‘self’ that wears the object attire and the subject attire. The distinction you make is, of course, fair, and I am curious as to ‘who’ it is that makes the distinction. What I sense, is that object and subject are ‘symptoms’ of a self that intends both conditions by ‘being’ both conditions simultaneously.

So, I will ask you, Topo: Do you have a sense of self that is not defined by either object or subject, or.. as some might suggest, do you believe I am venturing away from ‘self’ into another version of existence?

I am hopeful that my interval of pondering was not too daunting as there is much happening in my little corner of existence. I have pared this down from the 4 pages to its current size, as I think I was attempting to offer a meal of equal proportion, when it is not yet through ‘cooking’..

Be well..

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..

Hi Topo… clearly, I have waded into a rational discussion that will challenge my simple understandings, so.. I humbly request that you, and others, be patient as I ponder the possible relationships inspired by such an eloquent and well-thought-out presentation.

Come, come, Tzu, you can be emphatic and assertive and at times confusing to others for someone who claims to have a simple understanding. :) We each have cultivated our meanings to language in different directions, often what seems simple to one is highly complex to another in the contrast of our cultivated meanings.

But if you were to accuse me of being skilled at blowing smoke through various orifices, I would have to grin sheepishly. :) I've been polishing this turd for a while now.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I appreciate the problems associated with trying to define existence without a ‘widget’ that exists, but that’s where this will be tested, in the absence of “what exists”. By that, I am referring to the claims of existent experiences, unverifiable by other than the claimant, and believed by others only by their preference to do so. The veracity of the claimant’s testimony and anyone’s inclination to accept such as valid is not verification. I am inclined to agree with the likelihood of common experiences, i.e.: eating an apple, but not the taste; seeing an image, but not the meaning; hearing a sound, but not its interpretation, etc… if my meaning is not clear, please remind me to do better.

Your meaning is clear. Suppose we were standing next to each other and gazing at this particular poster hanging in an optometrist's office:



Suppose I am color blind and you are not. You testify to seeing a 74 and I don't see anything but a field of slightly hued dots. We could both agree on the position and placement of the dots, but unless I perceived the same qualities that you do, have the same names associated to those qualities, and both have perceptual systems which created the same gestalt experiences, we would not be able to synchronize our language usage.

Ultimately we have private experiences and we are left trying to communicate through linguistically describing the relationships between different parts of our experiences. Whereupon we agree upon the relationships between the parts, we assume it is the same (or similar enough) experience. But ultimately we do not know and are left to guess as to what another is experiencing.

I will say, that when I am open to intuition then I have an easier time "reading people" and inferring what experience and perception of relationship an other seems to be having. Or at least such is my experience, I have become more intuitive (than I was before) about understanding where a person is at in relation to their own experience and I seem to have a greater capacity to speak to that relationship, or so it seems within my experience.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You have used the term ‘apple’ to relate varying degrees of information derived from a reference to the apple. I will try to do the same. As I am seeing an apple, touching it, smelling it, tasting it, hearing its crisp crunch, I am knowing, or know, the apple exists, much as you have suggested. In the absence of physical apples I cannot affirm that apples exist, but I have a very consistent history and a generally favorable depth of ‘apple experiences’ that suggest that apples do exist. This “understanding”, that there are apples existent but not within my field of direct experience, is what i mean when I use the term “knowledge”. It is my understanding that “knowledge” is directly related to experience, but is not experience itself.

Agreed, knowledge is the accumulation of understanding about how different parts of experience are related to each other.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Experience is that relationship I have with conditions that are not ‘me’, ‘me’ being ‘that’ which is ‘experiencing’ the relationships. This is nearer to the topic of our discussion than I had expected so early in the discussion’s evolution, but.. a central consideration of “how are we to understand self”, will necessarily be a function of experience. It is reasonable to opine that ‘self experiences self’, but that opinion feels less than authentic, as I can reason its relationship with the meaning of the cliché, “a hammer cannot hit itself”. What my experience has revealed to me, is that I experience ‘me’ through relationships with conditions that appear to be separate from me, the actuality of that appearance being a central issue with the topic of our discussion. The word experience, as I understand it, suggests that the individual point of reference I label as “me” or “I” interacts in some discernable way with a condition that is not ‘me’. At the very least, there is an interaction with ‘something’ discernable, and whether that ‘something’ is internal or external to ‘me’ will evolve with the discussion.

Could you give some concrete examples of experiences which demonstrate the relationship between "me" and "not me" that you are describing? I just need to make sure I understand how you are using your language so that when I translate its expressed relationship back into my experience, I am placing the right labels over the right regions of my own experience. In this way I can come to see in myself what you see within yourself, assuming we have experiences that are structurally similar (in terms of relationship between qualities).

This "me" that you are referring to, is that the subject-self, the observer/experiencer? Or is it the object-self, the thought of one's self that accumulates in the mind? I have found that there is a marked different in relationship between subject-self to object and object-self to object. I think we'll be spending some time exploring these relationships just so that we can pin down this understanding and develop some useful knowledge about our selves.

Take for instance the sensation of a full bladder. The subject-self experiences the sensation, revealing the degree of pressure felt within the urethra and how eminent the damn bursting feels, but then the object-self steps in with the thought "I really need to pee" and then the object-self begins to interrupt all engaged processes between the body and the world in order to relocate the body to a position within the world in which it is acceptable to open the flood gates and let the waters flow. Whereas the subject-self felt the experience, the object-self responded to the felt experience in order to make sure the event took place in proper decorum. Without the object-self, the subject-self would just sit there feeling the pressure build to the point where the pressure releases and a warmth and wetness is felt growing around one's lap. Without the object-self to assert its thought of decorum to go wash the body and change into dry clothes, the subject-self would sit in the feeling of being wet and warm, then wet and cold, and smelling of urea.

More examples would be welcome which show the relationship between the "me" and "not me" you are describing.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

At this point, I would like to explore what you term “belief”, and its relationship with ‘that’ which is me. In the instances of knowing and knowledge, belief is justified by reason of experience. A recollection of those experiences, though discounted by the potential for inaccuracy of recollection and for biased or selective memory recall, serves to refamiliarize me with an experience now passed, the accuracy of which may be questioned.

Yes, I follow. In my own wording: The experience puts forward a cluster of qualities which exist in relationship to each other. Our memory of our experience is like a stored image which may or may not capture all the expressed qualities. What makes it into memory are the qualities that we have paid attention to. Through repeated or continued experience we can etch those qualities deeper into our memories, imprinting the pattern of relationship. From these remembered experiences we begin to create representative models, or concepts by fore-grounding essential qualities which are shared by a family of similar experiences. Through repeated or continued experience we can sculpt and refine our concepts to reveal essential relationships. Over time, remembered experiences can atrophy or skew based on personal bias. The skewing can happen when we try to interpret an experience through a malformed concept. The concept is like a deforming lens if the concept is not built to reflect the raw experience accurately. Many people do not even realize when they have malformed concepts because the skewed interpretation of the experience re-enforces and justifies the skewed conception.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Another common use of the term belief is an appeal to reason, where propositions are put forth and the observer is asked to ‘reason’ the validity of a proposition based on information with which they have ‘no direct knowledge’.

This is what the field of Academic Philosophy refers to as "a-prioiri" knowledge, reasoning over definitions. A Bachelor is defined to be an unmarried man. The definition of Unmarried is that one does not have a spouse. Then through logic (manipulation of symbolic definition) it can be reasoned that a Bachelor does not have a wife or a husband and is available to court in accordance with the pervading social morals.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I do not suggest that this process, the appeal to reason, does not yield meaningful information that might lead to actual knowledge. I do suggest that an appeal to reason can result in a belief that cannot be verified. Hence, it is my practice to attempt to recreate an experience, closely approximate with the proposed conditions of an appeal to reason. From which I ‘reason’ an appropriate relationship within the structure of my understandings.

That last half of this quote is not something I was able to follow completely.

I think here it is useful to segregate two different kinds of knowledge. There is direct knowledge which is derived from one's own direct experience. Then there is reasoned knowledge which is derived through the application of logic and conceptual manipulation. I see these as two distinct classes and value them separately. Within myself I value direct knowledge over reasoned knowledge. Wherever I can, I will try to ground reasoned knowledge in my direct experience and thus promote it to direct knowledge and I would not have to appeal to reason in order to justify it. When I communicate with another person, in order to impart direct knowledge, I ask them to pull forward a particular experience and ask them to pay attention to different aspects of their experience in order to gain their own direct knowledge.

There are several difficulties I have encountered with the use of reasoned knowledge. 1) The means of derivation through logic is of inferior quality than deriving the understanding from direct experience. 2) Any malformed concept will lead to malformed conceptual conclusions which takes me further and further from the truth of my direct experience. 3) I have a much much harder time trying to impart reasoned knowledge to someone else because that reasoned knowledge has to fit into to their web of inter-dependent conceptions, whereas with direct knowledge a person is compelled to re-evaluate their reasonings in the truth of their experience. 4) I can fall into the trap of creating imagined experiences in order to justify the reasoning. The use of an imagined experience is a pseudo direct-experience. The truth derived is simply the truth within one's imagination... As to whether or not imagination is as valid as non-imagined experience, I leave that valuation up to the individual; But I often have a hard time relating to and understanding someone who has equated the two. I usually get around to saying something like "That is not what I find in my experience..."

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You have asked: Tzu, with respect to existence, do you swing left or right, or would you like to put forward your own differing account?

To which I reply: Both. As you have so capably described existence, albeit from differing perspectives, it is my experience that, as the ‘point of reference’ for such perspectives, both are easily experiencable by intending, applying, or allowing awareness to be focused in either or both of your described perspectives of existence. By now, you may have noticed that I am inclined to reserve judgment on many issues, in favor of ‘waiting and seeing’. I sense, from your account of leaning both left and right, that you might be inclined to let either the situation or your inherent nature reveal which way to lean, or even if leaning is appropriate. I am similarly inclined.

We both say both, but in the context of how this discussion is going, there is a difference in the kind and quality of knowledge produced through these two different perspectives. The left perspective was direct experience. The right perspective was probabilistic knowledge, which is even weaker in terms of epistemic quality than reason applied to direct experience. The perspective on the right would include all forms of deriving knowledge, including abductive knowledge which applies default assumptions. If I walk outside and the ground is wet, my experience tells me I know of two ways the ground can be wet, either it rained or the sprinklers were on. Abductively I will assume that one or the other is the case based on personal experience, and never assume that it was a visiting pack of aliens having a water-gun fight. The problem with abductive reasoning is that it can lead to mistakes with its assumptions and it would be more effective to take the epistemic position of not-knowing than thinking we know. That said, most of our "intelligent" behavior is based on abductive reasoning.

So while I say both, I prefer the left and use the left to refine the understanding of the right.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You have also asked: Tzu, you did not make the distinction in self that I am making. Do you feel that this distinction is fair? That there is a valid distinction between consciousness itself and the mind/body that is growing within it leading to the distinction between two kinds of self?

To which I reply: I must reference a pivotal observation in your presentation of object and subject selfs; “Through our upbringing, our attention has been outwardly oriented and the object-self is constructed around our body appearance and relationships to our family, social groups, and local environs. If we reverse the orientation of our attention and look "within" and away from the externals, through meditation, sensory deprivation, isolation, and challenging what anchors our outward attention, then we bring our attention more on the universal and impersonal aspects of ourselves. Beingness, Humanity, Energy, Existence, etc.”. I am drawn to ‘that’ which has the capacity to “reverse the orientation of our attention”, that is my understanding of self, the ‘self’ that wears the object attire and the subject attire. The distinction you make is, of course, fair, and I am curious as to ‘who’ it is that makes the distinction. What I sense, is that object and subject are ‘symptoms’ of a self that intends both conditions by ‘being’ both conditions simultaneously.

So, I will ask you, Topo: Do you have a sense of self that is not defined by either object or subject, or.. as some might suggest, do you believe I am venturing away from ‘self’ into another version of existence?

When I close my left eye and look through my right eye, activating my left-brain analytic side, I see a dualistic world and a distinction between subject and object. When I close my right eye and look through my left eye, activating my right-brain creative side, I see a non-dual world of spontaneous action with no distinction between subject and object and no thought of self. I try to keep both eyes open when I look at things, it makes the experience richer.

And thus is born the paradox, which eye is seeing the truth? Is there a self, a no-self, two-selves, ... All I can say is there is no thought of self in spontaneous action. And when one sits down to analyze spontaneous action, two distinct selves can be seen, subject and object, acting together. Is spontaneity superior to analysis? Analysis can help refine our spontaneous expressions. Learning musical theory can help us refine the level of musical talent we have. Is analysis superior to spontaneity? Without that innate spark of talent, no amount of theory is going to help us play evocative pieces of music.

In the end, does the number of selves, 0, 1, or 2 even matter? Only if we're demanding that reality be logically sound and consistent. (Or if we're trying to win an argument). All language, even rational language, is irrational and poetic at the heart. I prefer to speak in the moment and to the circumstance. With you, in this analytical discussion, there are two. When I am frolicking and playing there is one. When my heart pours and I care for another there is none. I speak poetically more often than not. It is how I stay grounded in my soul.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I am hopeful that my interval of pondering was not too daunting as there is much happening in my little corner of existence. I have pared this down from the 4 pages to its current size, as I think I was attempting to offer a meal of equal proportion, when it is not yet through ‘cooking’..

Be well..

I hope that my response here being dynamic and quicker does not imply I am serving you re-heated left-overs.

I figured you were busy as you were absent in other threads as well. You have plenty of time, and I really should be putting other things ahead of posting here as well.

Does the number and nature of self matter to you, Tzu?

[andrew g]

A contribution from the peanut gallery here, I am happy to be ignored, I just havent got much else better to do while Im waiting for my cottage pie to cook!

To follow on slightly from an analogy you used Topology. I imagine selves to be like diamonds, each one unique, not just in colour, but also in the vibrancy of the colour. Furthermore, I see the colour and vibrancy of the diamond as always changing if only slightly. Each unique diamond represents all that we are in terms of personality, psyche, physicality and genes etc. At the very center of the diamond is the source of light, a pinpoint of pure white light that flows in all directions filling the diamond with light. Surrounding this pinpoint of light, yet also not separate from the pinpoint, is a uniquely coloured filter. This filter is ever changing in colour and is also ever changing in its thickness. A thick filter does not allow much light through and thus the unique colour of the diamond is less vibrant. A thin filter allows much light through and thus the unique colour of the diamond is more vibrant. The filter therefore determines the colour and vibrancy of the diamond itself. I would describe the filter as 'the soul'. Theoretically I imagine the filter could become so thin so as to disappear, but if that was the case, there would be no more unique and individual diamond.

Cheers guys....time for me to eat now.

The term CONCEPT is employed in psychological literacture to denote a rather wide variety of phenomena. Phychologically speaking, concepts are mechanisms by which we attempt to cope with multiplicity of nature. By means of concepts, we are able to deal with new concepts with events in terms of PAST EXPERIENCE, and thus effect a psychic economy through the avoidance of additional effects at adaption.

Self is created through a lifetime of 'experience'. We deal with new arising situations based on past experience, even with a new situation never dealt with before. In other words conceptual abstraction.

Psychology of Cognitive view

The Cognitive orientation posits the existence of an inductive mechanism, similar to that which operates on rule-governed linguistic input, by which organisms acquire knowledge of the regularities of structured sequences of environmental events. 'Experiences' are "used as examples from general rule systems which capture the regularities of these expressions are induced."

Generality is achieved, not through loss of "Irrelevant" information, but from the coding of information into more abstract view.

There are studies showing a subset of eight simple words. Which can be used for a total of 16 total words. It indicated that internal structure of a set of stimuli contained in a set. They wrote that a subset of words should be more difficult to learn the TOTAL set itself even though it is a small set of words, because the INTERNAL STRUCTURE of the subsets give the subjects something to learn which the total set does not.

In other words leaning a subset requires that a subject learn a dimensional component components of the total set and, in addition, learn the CORRELATION structure of the subset itself.

When the ability of a subjects to discriminate between positive and negative instances or just between two different classes of stimuli is an ultimate consequence of a subjects learning what stimuli go into each class, it is a secondary consequence that does not define or establish the essence of concept leaning.


Subsequent stimuli events qualify as "exemplars" of the acquired idea or concept to the extent that they are consistent with its meaning. The rationale of these studies adheres to the general tenets of cognitive psychology but derives more DIRECTLY ON THE WORKS OF MEMORY.