Re: virus: self and speech

SwiftRain (swiftrain@geocities.com)
Fri, 26 Dec 1997 20:30:21 -0500

JakeHarvey wrote:
>
[snip]
> "I" is a word that refers to the self,

yes...

> which in turn is the center of perception

perception has no center. it happens everywhere at once.

> and is maintained through the combined activities of self-reference
> and perception.

what does this mean?

the Self Meme is maintained by surviving the obstacles which are
placed before it in the brain: this means successfully controlling
resources in such a way as to ensure its own survival and effect its
retransmission.

> "I" is also a meta-convention that supports such helpful conventions
> as initiative and taking responsibility.

explain "supports"?

certainly the Self Meme does "take responsibility" for quite a lot
of things -- this being a successful method of retransmission and
substantiation.
unfortunately it does not actually *do* these things, as they are
caused by multiple interacting factors -- those occurances which have
conditioned the environment within which they occur, including those
occurances which have conditioned the brain (memories) -- and thus the
Self as a center of responsibility is an illusion.

[snip]
> I don't percieve anyone participating in this discussion that seems
> willing to "give up the idea of *I*".

the idea of a person who is "willing to" give up the idea of I is,
again, ironic.
to put the issue in its own terms: the idea of nonself exists, as
does the idea of self, and they battle for control of the territory of
mind. (this fight occurs within each human brain, as well as in groups
and societies.)

> I hope no one does. IMO anyone that is "ready to relinquish that most
> fundamental faith..." is someone that is ready act irresponsibly.

why? what is it about the idea of Self which conditions
responsibility? indeed, what is meant by "responsibility?"

in defense of the Nonself, it must be said that the Buddha's
boundless compassion does not seem very irresponsible.

[snip]
> << to use the word "I" in a sentance condemning people for not
> abandoning the concept of Self is certainly a bit ironic.>>
>
> Yes, ironic and perhaps almost inevitable.

inevitable? how about this: "there is an idea that Self is harmful,
a cause of suffering -- and this idea has helped to condition the idea
that the elimination of Self from speech would inhibit its transmission
and reinforcement, leading to the easing of suffering."

[snip]

-- 
http://www.sudval.org/users/swifty/