(no subject)
Nov. 11th, 2005 02:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
proximoceptionAddressing determinism, the idea that all is caused: 1. Do you know exactly how? If yes, you are omniscient, the world is complete and I wish you well. 2. Do you not know exactly how all is caused? Then you do not know that it is. 3. Do you rather assume it is, based on observed probability and the shapes of events? Fair enough, though I'd like to know more about your methodology; but what possible meaning does this conclusion have for you?
Round two: It means there is no freedom. In the sense of ability to escape cause? Yes, that is part of your premise. So? So all I do is predetermined. Predetermined sounds suspiciously like a term of intention. Let's replace it with "caused" again, or all-caused. What's wrong with being all-caused? I might as well not exist at all, or exist in some completely different way. Might as well from what perspective? Some ways of being you'd presumably enjoy more. You don't understand. There is no me. Because you're part of a larger causal chain? Yes. But you don't know the composition of that chain. It doesn't matter, it is real. But not to you, in its entirety, and its entirety is all we're worried about here. But I feel I don't exist! No you don't, you wouldn't know how to feel that. But I feel unease that I might now. You exist to you, if only as error, and presumably as ineradicable error. Your personal world, since contributed to by your lack of knowledge, will never be the world of the truth. And therefore you have escaped cause. You are free. But wherever I make this assumption I will trip over the truth and feel myself disappear again. The light of truth disintegrates you wherever you're exposed to it? Well, is that unpleasant? Maybe you can get used to it. It will never get all of you, as we established. And presumably death is not ultimate revelation, in a knowledge sense. But all the things I say about me I need to stop saying. It's all lies. How so? You live in your world, you're allowed to map things out, label things. Whatever works, right? But the labels are false and must be discarded shortly. Discard them shortly then, if so. Look, find the errors the light of truth never destroys, or the ones that grow back fastest when disintegrated. Use these as foundations. Explore outwards from there. Be prepared to discard labels as you approach the danger areas. Approach these only where you need truth to function, actually--though that's likely a lot of places. Take notes, make drawings. You'll be alright. But what about you? Well, I have extension so I don't exist, so don't worry about me. Use the phenomenon or idea of me in any way that helps, by the way.
How can you be so calm about not existing?
But I do exist. But just as error. No, not as error. Things move and I am one of them. Moved by other things. Yes and et cetera. You are caused. But cause is not caused. Yes, every cause is caused by one or more causes. But cause itself is not. Movement must be inherent to being, and if not at one point then throughout. As a citizen of the throughout I proudly proclaim my uncausedness. Even if that were so, so what, so you're random. Not random. Random would be entire uncause, and hence nothing. I am open to cause and uncause both, apparently. I am the largely settled explosion of overlapping substances and awarenesses that are the record and sustenance of such a meeting. Well that sounds weird. It's just what happens. All adjectives apply.
Round two: It means there is no freedom. In the sense of ability to escape cause? Yes, that is part of your premise. So? So all I do is predetermined. Predetermined sounds suspiciously like a term of intention. Let's replace it with "caused" again, or all-caused. What's wrong with being all-caused? I might as well not exist at all, or exist in some completely different way. Might as well from what perspective? Some ways of being you'd presumably enjoy more. You don't understand. There is no me. Because you're part of a larger causal chain? Yes. But you don't know the composition of that chain. It doesn't matter, it is real. But not to you, in its entirety, and its entirety is all we're worried about here. But I feel I don't exist! No you don't, you wouldn't know how to feel that. But I feel unease that I might now. You exist to you, if only as error, and presumably as ineradicable error. Your personal world, since contributed to by your lack of knowledge, will never be the world of the truth. And therefore you have escaped cause. You are free. But wherever I make this assumption I will trip over the truth and feel myself disappear again. The light of truth disintegrates you wherever you're exposed to it? Well, is that unpleasant? Maybe you can get used to it. It will never get all of you, as we established. And presumably death is not ultimate revelation, in a knowledge sense. But all the things I say about me I need to stop saying. It's all lies. How so? You live in your world, you're allowed to map things out, label things. Whatever works, right? But the labels are false and must be discarded shortly. Discard them shortly then, if so. Look, find the errors the light of truth never destroys, or the ones that grow back fastest when disintegrated. Use these as foundations. Explore outwards from there. Be prepared to discard labels as you approach the danger areas. Approach these only where you need truth to function, actually--though that's likely a lot of places. Take notes, make drawings. You'll be alright. But what about you? Well, I have extension so I don't exist, so don't worry about me. Use the phenomenon or idea of me in any way that helps, by the way.
How can you be so calm about not existing?
But I do exist. But just as error. No, not as error. Things move and I am one of them. Moved by other things. Yes and et cetera. You are caused. But cause is not caused. Yes, every cause is caused by one or more causes. But cause itself is not. Movement must be inherent to being, and if not at one point then throughout. As a citizen of the throughout I proudly proclaim my uncausedness. Even if that were so, so what, so you're random. Not random. Random would be entire uncause, and hence nothing. I am open to cause and uncause both, apparently. I am the largely settled explosion of overlapping substances and awarenesses that are the record and sustenance of such a meeting. Well that sounds weird. It's just what happens. All adjectives apply.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-08 03:15 am (UTC)The formation of a unique self is similar to the development of the common law: it comes from the determination of questions of first impression. It's not that I discover a pre-existing, "true" self, but that I make unguided decisions and then affirm them, accepting them as a part of my self. The distinction between the self created by community and the self created autonomously (there is no autonomously discovered self) is whether or not there is an existing precedent. If I merely follow community precedents, then I am being created socially, my self is a community self. However, in the (rare) case that I have to confront a decision for which I do not have a precedent, or for which there are conflicting precedents, I must make a choice. In order for this choice to be an autonomous, self-creating choice, it must be 1) random, and 2) affirmed or negated by me after the fact. If the choice is not random, then it is based upon previous precedents, whether extrinsic or intrinsic, and it adds little or nothing to the self. If the choice is not based upon precedents, I must decide after the fact whether or not the choice defines me. If it does, then this becomes part of my autonomous self. If it does not, then I have added to what I am not, but I have not necessarily added to what I am. Note that it does not matter whether or not there exist precedents which would have decided my choice, but which are unknown by me. All that matters are the precedents which I am aware of. The choice need not be unique in the world to me, it merely must be unique in my own experience. The crucial move is the random choice between alternatives, the rejection of certain alternatives, the acceptance of certain other alternatives, and the affirmation and internalization of that choice. To review, there is an extrinsic self which is formed through the adoption of community precedents, and there is an intrinsic self which is formed through the affirmation of random choice which could not be decided on the basis of those precedents. Our self is created after the fact, by our explanations of our own acts, our acts are not created by our internal self.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-10 08:46 am (UTC)1. Isn't one's ability to receive the community's instruction based in "intrinsic" i.e. physical capacity? How much you get, when you get it, how it's taken will surely vary with structure. So even social identity is potentially unique.
2. Once you have formed an intrinsic self through the amalgamation of various randomly arrived-at choices (all of them also conceivably influenced by structure, no? Especially when external info cancels out...) it helps create further internal selves (n+1, n+2 etc. till death), as it is an alternative to the social line. Our acts are created by our internal self which is creates by our acts, once the ball is rolling.
So you've got social, physical, random factors, but these form internal ones. And then there were four. Uniqueness = inevitable, internalization = progressive.