The Cartisian Theater of self, or homunculus(small person) illusion. A house of mirrors?

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 9:21am

It is a very common misunderstanding that stems from people having trouble distinguishing what is "self" versus anything else. If I have a thought, then I must not be the thought. If I have a perception, then I must not be the perceived. If I have a memory, then I must not be the memory. If I have a desire, then I must not be the desire.

It is merely the self thinking of itself as though its parts were not its own, self-disassociating and deconstructing.

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 9:33am

what is self vs, everything else? In what context. The perception of self as independent from ones environment is an illusion That is pretty clear. The concept that Self exists independent from ones biology is an illusion, that is pretty clear. Correspondence theory is only true in context to itself. Logic in and of itself is not true independent from biology, that is pretty clear. The concept of logic, independent from our biology is well illogical, That is self referencing logic and is not logical. So to point to the picture above and think that you aren't stuck in a Cartesian theater is to be stuck in an Cartesian theater. Logic is always in context of a somehting it is never independent from it's own context.

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 9:36am

You sure seem to be awfully clouded for seeing so much so "clear".

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 11:29am

I put everything into context if you don't then who i clouded? Buddha says this very clearly, Self is an illusion , no self is false too. James You flip from Self is true in the illusion as a separate independent from it's enviorment and it's biology and point to no self is the only option, That is clearly false as well and I might as purely Cartesian theater as well, or pure subjectivity all of this flips on our biology which generates our sense of self. Pure logic= intellectual autism which is as nutty as the other end of our biological spectrum. Where's love fit into all of this James??? Apparently Dennett has no idea do you?

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 11:43am

James where does love fit into all of this. I pay very close attention to what you are saying, not one of your posts has any framework for the word love. It's missing as if it's an invalid a bad it doesn't fit into your schema of logic in any way. Logic in and of itself by itself is true in reference to itself, but Locic is an intrinsic to the beautiful world around us so is love an intrinsic to the world around us. The deepsest of all logic to infinity is to know directly that Love unbound is a true undefined in and of itself and that one in balance to the other is who we are at the deepest levels where ever we may be regardless. I feel sad for you James you do not feel love so you feel unloved and those you cannot love easily. That in and of itself is not logical james at the deepest levels of who we are.

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 12:08pm

For my discussions of Love, it might help to look at my earlier blogs.

Love is essentially the effort to support and is often accompanied by desires to be with because what you desire to be with is also usually what you try to support (if you have any maturity anyway).

I tend to speak more about the Logic because that is the part most people seem to get confused even though "HOW to Love" has really been the only problem in society. You can't get it straight as to how to love if you can't see the logic of loving first. And even that is all wrapped up in the confusion of language and cross incentives from different people wanting to keep you confused and others trying in futility to help you out.

Knowing who to trust, and who to love, would remove all problems, but how are you going to find that out without doing it right first? That is why religious arguments have gone on for thousands of years. It is very difficult for a person to know who to believe before they already believe them.

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 12:13pm

Love is essentially the effort to support and is often accompanied by desires to be with because what you desire to be with is also usually what you try to support (if you have any maturity anyway).

Is love subservient to logic?

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 12:32pm

I might also add men tend to to logic their way towards feelings, while women tend toward feeling their way towards logic. But what are feelings, it in and of itself implies a sensory aspect of who we are. Feelings in and of itself is independent of higher order logic that humans possess. Logic in and of itself in homo sapiens is directly dependent on long term memory capacity and that really is it, we have a bit more Ram is all we are no different than those one step down with less Bio Ram so to speak. Language, writing. Tool making is all dependent upon this capacity. So our ability to discuss the above picture is purely an abstractive picture in and of itself that we can draw to discuss abstractive concepts that are only relevant to our higher capacity of Bio Ram so to speak. Show it to a chimpanzee and the chimpanzee sees the picture and infers nothing from the picture at all because they have nothing to reference to.
I take this all very personal. My daughter will never be able to generate a Cartesian theater of perceptions so to speak, due to her disabilities. The degree in which she can is directly related to how her brain functions, but is she less of me, or you or anyone? If you can't feel that, well then you have no heart. That little girl sitting in my lap has taught me much about the nature of self in some meaningful ways, in that I say we are undivided in the nature of Everything in who we are.

Comment by James S Saint on November 30, 2009 at 12:45pm

"Is love subservient to logic?"

Logic (Accurate Logic) is the set immutable rules that cannot ever change (God and Accurate Logic are synonymous). Love is an effort, a "spirit", an "emotion" specifically toward the support (hopefully logically) of some chosen "good" or "goal". Logic can dictate how to best support a goal and is then called "rationale", but Logic does not dictate the higher goal, or not for most people.

If you happen to be very good at accurate logic, you can discern your "purpose" or goal that was already instilled within you even before you ever thought to ask the question. But very, very few people ever get that good at logic. Thus a somewhat arbitrary "purpose" of their life is chosen and then logic is applied so as to ration out how to serve that purpose.

Which is serving which doesn't really make any sense. Logic dictate what can or cannot be, love is the effort to cause or maintain what is. They serve each other.

I was about to say earlier that when it comes to speaking strictly to women, I seldom speak of logic, but almost entirely of emotions and the "sense" in emotions. This is largely due to a natural prejudice I have that women don't really care about the logic and males (used to) have more logical control over their emotional direction.

Thus with males, I still tend to speak mostly of logic even though these days most males have no more control over themselves than most females (after all, we have to MAKE all people equal if we are going to declare that they are to be treated that way. It is much easier to make males feminine and persuadable than it is to make women masculine and logical, not to mention it allows for more control over them).

Comment by david thurman on November 30, 2009 at 1:02pm

Logic (Accurate Logic) is the set immutable rules that cannot ever change (God and Accurate Logic are synonymous). Love is an effort, a "spirit", an "emotion" specifically toward the support (hopefully logically) of some chosen "good" or "goal". Logic can dictate how to best support a goal and is then called "rationale", but Logic does not dictate the higher goal, or not for most people.

Does this mean that Logic is God and that love is not?

On this I would flip into John 1:1 and insert either the word Logic , or love here and read it and say that either statement is a valid statement and contend that if that is a valid statement in John 1:1 They are equal.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page