Re: so you think you exist...

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:14:13 -0700

On 18-Aug-00, Higgo James wrote:
> Yes, Brent, 'objective' is the key. I should have made that clearer, perhaps
> - you will note that I always say there in no *objective* relationship.
>
> What I mean by using 'objective' is that, unless a thought defines it, a
> group of thoughts can not exist. Archimedes, viewing the multiverse from
> without, cannot see any groups of thoughts unless he specifically chooses to
> - in which case he can see anything, choose any group he likes. But what
> would be the point of that? Archimedes can just imagine something without
> bothering to look at the multiverse, as he knows for sure that something is
> there.
>
> You could say, "well this very present thought of mine is defining a group
> of thoughts as all the ones I remember, and calling that group 'Brent
> Meeker'". Congratulations, you have defined yourself into existence!

 You seem to
recognize that thoughts can have asymmetric relations through which I can
'define' Brent Meeker. I see no reason to say that these relations are any
less objective than the relations of thoughts that constitute space or objects
or anything else. Do you have in mind some 'objective' relations which are
different than the relations between thoughts; such as ideas which people can
communicate and agree on and hence become objective in the social sense?

But why
> do so? What is the point? What objectives will you meet? The only thing you
> achieve is pander to an urge that is a component of your very present
> thought - an urge to believe 'I exist!' I speculate that all thoughts which
> include 'I am submitting a post to the everything list' have that urge as a
> component.

  As for the point of 'defining' or recognizing my existence - I do it because I
want to. I don't need to have my values justified by anything outside ofme.

>
> So this is why I say it is meaningless to declare that Brent Meeker or James
> Higgo exist. It is meaningless to say anything particular thing exists if
> everything exists. This means that observers ('selves') do not exist, if you
> define them as groups of thoughts - unless they literally think themselves
> into existence!

It seems strange to say to something is meaningless after you have given an
explication of its meaning...and then to follow with an exception that is not
at all exceptional but is rather almost always the case.


The reason I mention buddhism now and then is that I just
> happened to notice that this is buddhist philosophy too - Nirvana is when
> you stop willing yourself into existence, and simply enjoy all there is to
> enjoy, your very present thought.
>
> A common 'koan' runs: 'if there is no self, who is it that achieves
> enlightenment?' This paradox is traditionally not susceptible to logic, so I
> am feeling rather pleased with 'myself' for having come up with the
> beginnings of a logical answer.
>
Very good!

To quote Groucho Marx, "If you think nobody cares whether you exist
or not, just try missing a car payment."


> James
>
> PS My machine says I replied already, but I don't remember...
Yes, you did reply earlier - although in a different vein.


Brent
Received on Thu Aug 24 2000 - 20:19:02 PDT