The
problem of the reality of self has been long debated in India and as a Final
Conclusion (Siddhanta) it has been
concluded positively - there is a substantial entity that is called
‘self’ and is different form BEING (God, Brahman) etc, suffers existential
repetition and escapes from that historical way of Being-in-the-World by
attaining Moksa. I want to make some comments in relation to the posting below and show that while Hume
is way off, Heidegger comes quite close to Meykandar but falls short of the
final conclusion because he failed to note Moksa as the Fundamental
INTENTIONALITY that provides the motivational dynamics for all actions
including the metaphysical. Heidegger could not see through DEATH and its
metaphysical significance as Moksa itself
1.
Moksa
is NOT simply a propensity to believe and which is simply a constituent of
the inherited understanding,
transmitted by language metaphysical traditions and so forth. The desire for Moksa lies at the deepest
layer of human understanding and transcends language culture traditions and so
forth. In fact there cannot be these elements without there being as an apriori
the pressure for Moksa as something there with the soul. Language culture
religions and various other kinds of cultural expressions are different shapes
this pressure for Moksa takes. In our investigations unless we analyze and go
to the depths of Human INTENTIONALITY, we shall never lay bare the Fundamental
Intentionality and which is the desire for Moksa and at which point a person
becomes a Mumuksu, the one who desires Moksa and nothing else. Punitavati (c. 5th
cent) is good example of such person.
The can see also this as the meaning of TiruvaLvar’s metaphor of PiRavik
Kadal Niintal, a metaphor as old as Suruppak’s NeRi ( c. 3000 BC).It is given
to ALL of us- whether German or English Tamil or Chinese Black or White Man or
Woman - it is already GIVEN as there, but at the deepest layer of Human
Understanding. Our problem is that we are LOST on the way and remain fixated to
the imagined and inherited.
2.
It
also follows that the ‘self’ is there as a substantive entity as that which seeks
Moksa for nothing else- the body the cognitive processes -thinking feeling etc
can SEEK out Moksa as it involves ESCAPING from the involvement or engagement
with the body and mind. The mind cannot escape from the mental by annihilating
itself. There has to be something ABOVE the mind, something that uses the
mental mechanisms as TOOLS for gaining an understanding and with that DESTROY
ignorance and when the time is ripe even escape from being caught up by the
body that comes along several instincts (sexual etc) and mental mechanisms or
modules (Manam Buddhi AhaGkaaram and Cittam) that predispose to THINKING. We cannot FREE ourselves from THINKING as
such by thinking. Here we can make sense of Heidegger’s notion of Authentic
Existence, not in the way he explained it but rather in the way Punitavati
articulated it - seeking miiNdum piRavamaai, seeking escape from the throwness
into existentiality that comes as endless births and deaths.
3.
Now
since there is hermeneutic process that causes the self to EVOLVE towards the
Fundamental Intentionality of seeking Moksa and nothing else underlying the
Being of self i.e. the Ways-of- Being-in-the-World of a anma or self, the
Existence, there has to be a BEING who is the GROUND of this evolutionary
movement and where this BEING is along-with as well ABOVE the self and Itself already in Moksa (Anati Mutta
Citturu). For only what is already in Moksa can work for the Moksa of others.
It is here that we can locate the
‘conscience’ as the inner CALL as Heidegger sees it. BEING in remaining along with the anmas, always keeps on calling
the self towards it’s own authenticity - a continuous reminder that at the
moment it leads an inauthentic life from which it should escape and become
free.
4.
We
have a CLUE to all these in our TIME consciousness. While Hume and Kant do not
go beyond what Tolkaappiyar(c. 300 BC) calls Terinilai Kaaalam, the world time
that breaks into past present and future always presupposing a point of
reference common to the community, there is also the KuRippu Kaalam that Tol
notes as part of verbal structure of languages. This KuRippu Kaalam is
INTENTIONAL Time and I believe this is what Heidegger means by TEMPORALITY, the
way of presence of TIME within the mind that is projective into the future. The
Da-sein that projects into the future and hence is in temporality is nothing
else but this anma but with intentionalities of all kinds for the
intentionalities are essentially projective. The intentional Da-Sein cannot on
its own become free of temporality and at the absence of acknowledging the presence of BEING which
promotes Moksa only DEATH will be seen as that towards which the Da-Sein is
moving as Heidegger thought. The authentic life is NOT that of awaiting DEATH
but rather that of Moksa. Moksa is also death but it the FINAL DEATH, a death
after which there is no rebirth, phenomenal presence with another body etc and
hence it is not the ordinary death which terminates only one lease of
existence.
5.
The
fundamental Temporality is the time consciousness instituted by Fundamental
Intentionality viz, the seeking of Moksa, and which is moving unto BEING by the
PULL He exerts and in which self becomes purified and enlightened so that it
becomes the SAME as BEING in the qualitative aspects. When this transmutational
and evolutionary movement of the self comes to a close it becomes the SAME as
BEING and in that also enjoy Njaanam, the Absolute Illumination that makes
everything translucent like a book that has been read many times and fully
understood so that it can be thrown away.
At
this point there is NO temporality at all as there is no Intentionality at
all and Speech as such becomes
impossible. The primordial impulse towards linguisticality is INTENTIONALITY
and when it is no more, speech also becomes impossible. The enjoyment and
communication of this Njaanam is only through Deep Silence (Moonam)
Loga
Gary
Moore <gottlos752004@yahoo.com> wrote:
To:
analytical-indicant-theory@yahoogroups.com
CC: heidegger@lists.village.Virginia.EDU
From: Gary Moore
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[ontologicalethics] A DISCUSSION OF THE REAL NATURE OF ‘SELF’ Part 1
A DISCUSSION OF THE REAL NATURE OF ‘SELF’ Part
1?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />: for Anybody to reply to
derived primarily from COGNITION AND COMMITMENT IN HUME’S PHILOSOPHY by Don Garrett, Oxford, 1997, chapter 8 “Personal Identity”, pages163-186
wherewith it will be shown that, though there may or may not be a strong “propensity” to believe and accept superficially many of Heidegger’s ideas, they are none the less structures of the individual’s imagination (Heidegger’s) whose basis is inherited “understanding” derived from the specific culture of the specific people around him (South German Catholic) wherein it may seem he is talking about ideas common in the parlance of the English speaking world but in fact, at best, they do not really fit, and, at worse, have no place in English speaking culture. This especially applies to the structure of “conscience” upon which the structure of an “authentic self” can be conceived. The structure of “conscience” in Heidegger is based generally on Aristotle’s setting up expectations of how one should act considering the axioms one believes in and has no specific morality in mind other than logical responsibility as the origin point of actions attributed to one. “Authentic” in Heidegger simply means, in the final analysis, you simply know what you are doing in Aristotle’s sense, and still implies no moral value whatsoever. However, the phrase “authentic” taken out of context implies something morally desirable and not simply a pragmatic tool of better clarity. And since people still use it even after Heidegger completely dropped it (at least as a major concept as it is in Sein und Zeit), it should be demonstrated at best it is a trivial and thoroughly confusing distinction, and at worst it is either meaningless or vicious in intent.
Intro
163: In Treatise I.iv.6, entitled “Of Personal Identity”, Hume presents his explanation of why we regard human minds as entities having an identity through time. His explanation depends on his previous account (Treatise I.iv.2) of how we arrive at the idea of identity as a relation, something more than unity, therefore, and yet still less than number or plurality. The idea of identity is the idea of something persisting “invariable and uninterrupted” through a “supposed variation in time.” Since human minds are not invariable or uninterrupted, identity is not an entity with a “perfect” or “strict” identity. A perfect identity is in fact only a bundle of perceptions, “bundled” by their interrelations of resemblance and causation. The actual relation among these perceptions is thus only a “fictitious” or “imperfect” identity. It is only because a series of varying objects related by resemblance and causation itself resembles an invariable and uninterrupted object that we confuse the former with the later and ascribe an “identity” at all.
163/164: Hume accounts for our tendency to think of ourselves as having a continuous identity through time by utilizing essentially the same mental-mechanism of identity-ascription that gives rise to the belief in “continu’d and distinct existences” (THN 202-204, i.e., A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE, edited Selby-Bigge, revised Nidditch, Oxford, 1978), thereby confirming the existence of this mechanism while avoiding the need to introduce another one.
164: Hume answers the question of whether memory “produces” personal identity (as Locke held) or only “discovers’ it (as Locke’s critics claimed) with a diplomatic compromise , by noting that while memory discovers resemblances and causal relations (“always”) already existing among perceptions, in doing so it also serves to produce additional resemblances (THN 260-262).
Hume is able to dismiss all “nice and subtle questions” concerning particular instances of personal identity as “grammatical” rather than substantive (THN 262). This dismissal calls into question the determinacy of many of the eschatological questions concerning the justice of divine rewards and punishment that originally motivated philosophical interest in the question of personal identity.
Yet in the Appendix to the Treatise, Hume confesses dissatisfaction with his own previous account:
Meykandar Hume and Heidegger-Replies to
Gary-1
Dear Gary
I shall be responding in parts as the
questions are quite demanding. So it will take a few days. I hope you can put
up with it.
Loga
Meykandar, Hume and Heidegger Loga-1 The problem of the reality of self has been long debated in India and as a Final Conclusion (Siddhanta) (GCM: The reference I looked up only said as much as you say. Could you clarify more precisely or refer to some common text I may have? Also, I am unfamiliar with Meykandar. I assume he is a Kashmiri Saiva Monist whose main work is Siva Jnana Bodham.) Loga-2: No Meykandar is NOT a Kashmiri. He is a Tamil who lived around the 13th cent in Tamil Nadu , during the times of the Imperial Cholas. Yes are right in saying that Siva Njnana Bodham is his work, ( in Tamil) the only work of Meykandar by the way. It is a brief treatise of only 12 sutras with a concise commentary of his own and which is the KaaNdikai Urai type, extreme tight and logical but Hermeneutical Logic , a kind of Logic first expounded in Tolkaappiyam( c.300 BC). His very famous student is AruNandi who wrote two books - one the Irupa Irupatu and another the massive Sivanja Siddhyar which is divided in two parts, the Parapakkam and Supakkam. The Parapakkam contains the description and deconstruction of all major metaphysical systems in India at that time. I am translating this and posting to my groups. For those who want to follow this the most convenient group to join will be agamicpsychology egroups( English) There has been many translations of SJB mostly by Christian missionaries. Not satisfied with all that I have given my own translation with commentary. You can read it at : http://ulagan.tripod.com/bocontent-e.html. Now I am writing Lessons on this book and you can read the lessons on the first 2 Sutras below: http://ulagan.tripod.com/Lessonbotham/les-botam-top.htm This is ongoing . Soon the lessons on Sutras 3 & 4, already written, will be uploaded. I will also begin work on the remaining sutras ( posted also in agamicpsychology egroups.) Now another book that I have already translated with my commentary is Irupa Irupatu, an unusually short and brilliant book (only 20 verses) that deals with Ethics. You can read it at: http://ulagan.tripod.com/irupa-con.htm I think to understand Saiva Siddhanta as it was developed by Tamils, familiarity with Tirumular’s Tirumantiram will be quite useful. I am also translating verses form this massive book of 3000 verses. Now I am studying his Mantrayana and posting my translations to my groups, including Agamicpsychology Loga-1 it has been concluded positively - there is a substantial entity
(GCM: This would mean it is a thing like a rock, that is, it is perceivable, it has specific measurements AND PLACE [it has to be WITHIN the dimensions of your body IN SOME MANNER] which means then it can be divided into parts. This is one of the many criticisms of Hume ) Loga-2: I don’t understand this view of Hume. Yes to be real it has to be perceived. But does this apply to that which does the perceiving itself? Every act of perception PRESUPPOSES that which perceives, sees etc without itself being as one of those which are seen objectively like the rocks, trees, rivers etc. The seeing self is NOT one of these but that because of which these things become the SEEN. In every act of seeing, the one who sees, sees himself as the seer. So acts of perception have double signification - there is something that is objectively seen (and which can be measured) and also something reflectively seen - that it is self that sees. When I see the rock there, it is MY seeing and NOT that of another and this I know in the act of seeing itself. That which is seen as the seer in every act of seeing cannot be objectified like the trees and rocks and hence measured, placed in time and location etc. I can stand as the body but I am NOT the body and hence I cannot be located within the body only. Destruction of the body will not count as destruction of self. Loga-1 that is called 'self' and is different form BEING (God Brahman) etc, (GCM: Then Brahman cannot be all-inclusive and infinite and omniscient and omnipotent, etc.) Loga-2 The Brahman of Advaita should not be confused with BEING (Siva) of the Saivites where the Brahman is just one of the showings of BEING. That the anmas are ontologically independent of BEING does not mean BEING is not omniscient, omnipotent etc. For the primordial state of all anmas (and the world) is one of being in the DARK, covered-up by the Malam, the Darkness, also unconfigured and indestructible. The anmas and the world along with it enjoy PRESENCE, being-there-as-such only because of the GRACE of BEING (Siva). He is Omnipotent for only He can destroy being-there of all by SaGkaaram, of destroying the presence, of letting Malam pervade again. And because of this He is also the POWER that can regenerate everything - re-issue the whole world (punar uRpatti). BEING-as-Siva is the Most Powerful among all gods because only He can self-destroy and self-recreate and thus something like the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle. There is NO POWER that stands as different and above that can destroy and regenerate BEING-as-Siva He stands as all (astamurti) including the selves (avaiyee taanaay) and hence all-inclusive, in the sense of being present everywhere with Power over them. But He can stand as distinct and ABOVE all as well (BEING as Cuttam) for only then He can pull all creatures unto Himself, set the dynamics of spiritual evolution ongoing as a feature of the world, show Himself as the DANCER. (To continue) 1
Meykandar Hume and Heidegger-Replies to Gary-2 Loga-1
suffers existential repetition and escapes from that historical way of Being-in-the-World by attaining Moksa. I want to make some comments in relation to the posting below and show that while Hume is way off, Heidegger comes quite close to Meykandar, (GCM: Now Heidegger is quite literally saying the self is nothing. On the one hand this gives the 'self' a kind of 'freedom' since no thing can effect nothing, and, on the other hand, intentionality must always fundamentally and simply be "intent" which means directed by futural purpose WHERE THE FUTURE ITSELF IS LITERALLY NOTHING AGAIN which includes every possible trivial and immediate purpose as well as the whole thirst or shape of life in the face of death. Death itself, for both Hume and Heidegger is a very trivial 'event'. It is how it shapes the purpose, thrust, form of one's life that it is important to Heidegger. With Hume it remains trivial because it is simply a necessary accident, does not at all involve one's basic desires because they should be based on substantial realities and not mere abstractions, and is simply the same nothing that Heidegger says the self is.) Loga-2 Yes there is some truth in saying that the self is nothing and which gives it a kind of freedom. But we should distinguish between Being-on-the-Way -Towards-Moksa and enjoying Moksa itself. The anma remains intentional on the way in its movement towards Moksa but on attaining Moksa it is FREED of all intentionalities and hence EMPTY of intent. Put elliptically the ‘self is NOTHING (Suunyam)’ at this point. There is no future, past and present as there is NO TEMPORALITY. Hence also NO THINKING. As Tirumular and Meykandar say the self is both the sat-self and asat-self (the authentic and inauthentic self?) and at the point of Moksa, it is purely the Sat-Self with all intention-infested asat-self overcome. Death should not trivialized and made simply an accident as is done by Hume (and also Heidegger?). Death is the deprivation of the body but without blessing the anma with Moksa. The anma still survives as the complex sat-asat-self (sat-asat anma) As long as the self continues to be this kind of self, there will be rebirth for the very purpose of birth is to provide opportunities to LEARN, overcome the asat-self and evolve into the sat-self. Loga-1 but falls short of the final conclusion because he failed to note Moksa as the Fundamental INTENTIONALITY that provides the motivational dynamics for all actions including the metaphysical. (GCM: Anticipating the future essentially does that for all entities, not just human. It is fundamentally the experiential and dialectical drive to stay alive, a learning evolution of experience confronting mistakes one has made and the "already always" inadequateness of ANY result. IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL DISATISFACTION WITH THE PRESENT SO ONE ALWAYS PLACES ONE'S HOPES INTO THE NOTHING OF THE FUTURE WHERE "NO THING" CAN DISILLUSION YOUR HOPES, however irrational they may be. So, essentially, even if one attained "moska" (liberation) or "jivanmukta" (liberation while alive), at BEST you would achieve that primordial point of first and fundamental decision before ANY decision you "always already" went through as a child before you knew what you were doing, or better what was being done to you, but now you are free from all the influences that made you, literally, what you were, and can make that primordial decision all over again either without, or conscious of, all of your presuppositions. But guess what. That would dissolve ALL intentionality unless you are a mere robot of the will of Brahman. For Heidegger and Sartre it is both a point that cannot be attained AND ALSO trivial and worthless since it necessarily by its own description and definition erases all value (intentionality). It would be a problem like "Buridan's ass" where a mule is place between two exact amounts of hay and only a very trivial circumstance will determine which pile it eats from.) Loga-2 Agreed with most of it. But why say Moksa is unattainable? Both Heidegger and Sartre never contemplated on the Deep Silence (Cutta Moonam) where speech as such is impossible and the only language of communication is Cin Mudra. A Civayogi is one enjoys this Moksa (as jiivan mukta) and he is Dead to the World of intentional machinations (cettiddu iruppar civayoogikaLee). It is NOT trivial for it is enjoying the END towards which the anma was moving in its evolutionary odyssey. It is the most meaningful for it is Being-one-with-BEING and what can be more blissful than that? Loga-1 Heidegger could not see through DEATH and its metaphysical significance. (GCM: How do you see through death which cannot even be experience? What does this statement mean? "Metaphysical significance" to Heidegger or to you?) Loga-2 When we realize our Fundamental Intentionality is enjoying Moksa, and when we realize that because of this we remain temporal, we also understand the presence of DEATH as an empirical event that points ABOVE itself to a state of Being-in-the-world FREE of being entangled with this death-birth bringing machinery. Death implicates a state of Being-in-the-World outside and ABOVE this machinery that makes a self historical and phenomenal. This is the metaphysical significance of Death that as far as I can see no Western philosopher has articulated. Heidegger comes close but misses it. Loga-1 1. Moksa is NOT simply a propensity to believe and which is simply a constituent of the inherited understanding, transmitted by language metaphysical traditions and so forth. The desire for Moksa lies at the deepest layer of human understanding and transcends language culture traditions and so forth. (GCM: this would make it an entity.) Loga-2: Yes in a way. In the Indian circles, it would be said a Tatva, a MeyporuL, something that is presence as there in the world even within the anma. Loga-1 In fact there cannot be these elements without there being as an apriori the pressure for (GCM: or "from"?) Loga-1 Moksa as something there with the soul. (GCM: fully separate from the soul? Is the "soul" the "self" or something separate once again?) Loga-2: A bit tricky here. Fundamental Intentionality as towards Moksa is part of the motivational dynamics but at the point of enjoying it is no more as such. The Sat-Self is FREE of it. Here perhaps it is more appropriate to talk of transmutation of self so that intentionalities are no more part of its psychodynamics. Hence the intentionalities can be considered as separable. Loga-1 Language culture religions and various other kinds of cultural expressions are different shapes this pressure for Moksa takes. (GCM: or gives?)
Loga-1 In our investigations unless we analyze and go to the depths of Human INTENTIONALITY, we shall never lay bare the Fundamental Intentionality and which is the desire for Moksa and at which point a person becomes a Mumuksu, the one who desires Moksa and nothing else. Punitavati (c. 5th cent) is good example of such person. It is given to ALL of us- whether German or English Tamil or Chinese Black or White Man or Woman - it is already GIVEN as there, but at the deepest layer of Human Understanding. Our problem is that we are lost on the way (GCM: That presupposes there is a "way". Human intentionality IS designed to seek "a way" overall other purposes, this is true and natural and inevitable in the very notion of intentionality. But this is simply how the "future" itself is structured. It is what it is and that is all. It is a way an animal survives and keeps on going and evolves or adapts from situation to situation. And each individual's "way" is absolutely (to the point of incommunicability) UNIQUE, "one's own". Both Heidegger and Hume would agree on this. It is based on predetermined "character" or "culture" [experienced uniquely by oneself which is the only way you can experience anything] or "common sense" or "understanding" or, what includes it all, language that LIVES only within yourself which, when you speak it to others, causes misunderstanding because of mismatched meanings as has already happened several times in this very missive. There are only individuals -- or there is nothing but a puppet show, and who would then be the malignant puppeteer? And within the so-called "unique" individual there are other individuals, other selves (language games for various situations), your organs, your natural dispositions usually called "instincts" and much, much more ad infinitum, much of which has not been noticed. The 'unique' individual is a SWARM composed of SWARMS that are in turn composed of other SWARMS, etc. "Intentionality" as such in literal reality is a political compromise between all of these contending entities.) Loga-2 The notion of language games of Wittgenstein is only a partial understanding of the NOTION of Play of BEING in Saivism, BEING the Cosmic Dancer, a metaphor that has survived from the Sumerian times among the Saivites. Every thing is there is the world because of the PLAY of Siva and in which also plays the MISLEADING games, the Maaya Nannaadan. Yes there is the WAY, the TiruneRi of Sambantar, the Sanmaarkkam of Tirumular and which means the WAY towards Authentic Metaphysical Illumination and which can be equated with the Aletheia of the Greeks. There various ‘conflicts of interpretations (Ricouver) are there for us to reflect and UNDERSTAND that there is the WAY, the WAY towards Njaanam, the Supreme Inner Radiance etc. Loga-1 and remain fixated to the imagined [we have] inherited. (GCM: Now THAT I can fully agree on. That is exactly what language is, essentially what the so-called 'self' really is, and how it operates: It fixates us. Thank you.) Loga-2: Thank-you but what you say about the self pertains to the sat-self, that which fixates imprisons etc and which has to be DESTROYED in order to FREE the authentic sat-self already within the self.
|
"K.
Loganathan" <ulagankmy@yahoo.com> |
|
Fri, 16 Apr
2004 18:59:21 -0700 (PDT) |
|
[Abhinavagupta]
Re: Meykandar, Hume and Heidegger: replies to Gary-1 |
Dear
Gary
I shall be responding in parts as the questions are quite demanding. So it will
take a few days. I hope you can put up with it.
Loga
Meykandar, Hume and Heidegger
Loga-1
it has been concluded positively - there is a substantial
entity
(GCM: This would mean it is a thing like a rock, that is, it is perceivable,
it has specific measurements AND PLACE [it has to be WITHIN the dimensions of
your body IN SOME MANNER] which means then it can be divided into parts. This
is one of the many criticisms of Hume )
Loga-2:
I don’t understand this view of Hume. Yes to be real it has to be
perceived. But does this apply to that which does the perceiving itself? Every
act of perception PRESUPPOSES that which perceives, sees etc without itself
being as one of those which are seen objectively like the rocks, trees, rivers
etc. The seeing self is NOT one of these but that because of which these things
become the SEEN. In every act of seeing, the one who sees, sees himself
as the seer. So acts of perception have double signification - there is
something that is objectively seen (and which can be measured) and also
something reflectively seen - that it is self that sees. When I see the
rock there, it is MY seeing and NOT that of another and this I know in the act
of seeing itself.
That which is seen as the seer in every act of seeing cannot be objectified
like the trees and rocks and hence measured, placed in time and location etc.
I can stand as the body but I am NOT the body and hence I cannot be located
within the body only. Destruction of the body will not count as destruction of
self.
GCM2:
“Perception exists.” There can be no disagreement on that. It is precisely
“presupposition” as “reality” that self-contradicts itself. If a
“presupposition” is real, then any whimsy can be real. That one needs it or has
great use for it or that it makes thinking as one has grown use to it extremely
inconvenient does not make it true. Hume states he needs presuppositions
by which to act and speak with others in ordinary life. But this is useful
thinking, “common sense”, what one inherits in language through “tradition” or
“understanding.” It has no logical basis in itself. It is PURELY inductive, and
not at all deductive EXCEPT for INTERNAL consistency. In other words, you
cannot stand outside your “tradition’, your purely pragmatic “presuppositions”,
and ‘objectively, detached, judge it because the “world” you live in and which
gives you the stance by which to judge is primordially created by that
tradition. It is inclusive of you and you are always included so that any real
“objective” view of it is purely from WITHIN, USING ONLY ITS TERMS AND CONCEPTS
TO JUDGE ITSELF, so that if a judgment is made, it is only a judgment as to
self-consistency and never objective validity.
The
only stance of “objective validity” is logic. Logic has no means of judging
experience, of discerning whether it is separate from you or somehow created by
you. If this doubt is taken seriously as an ACT of judgment, it is solipsism.
But you can already see that stance is self-contradictory because if all that
is real is only you, why are you making a judgment in language that is solely
grounded on the existence of other people that that all that is real is only
you? I would be telling you, “You don’t exist!” which necessarily
presupposes you exist.
Now,
if there is no self there can be no perceiver. They are synonymous. How can you
prove a perceiver exists? That would mean, once again, standing outside ‘your
self’, that is, your situation which is itself perception. There is no need to
even speak of a perceiver. “Perception” as literally experienced includes all
objectivity and all subjectivity. All of that is ‘perceived’ in some way. But
just as literal perception as perceived HAS NO BOUNDARY, that is, “I see this
but I do not see that” becomes a logical contradiction because in the context
of perception you only perceive and you cannot NOT PERCEIVE. There can be no
place you can designate except in mere words that you do not perceive, because
if you designate it you must see it. This is how I understand, for instance,
Shankara’s identity of ‘self’ and Atman, that there never was a real
distinction in the first place, that you “always already” were Atman or
Brahman, that is you never did have self or identity except as illusion, and
that all that is perceived is literally ‘yours’ in that you are it and it is
you. We make distinctions of perceiver and perceived for purely practical
reasons, common sense reasons, business reasons, useful reasons, but those
distinctions are not strictly logical.
Here emerges the distinction between Hermeneutic Logic and the linear Deductive Logic (with induction as well) of the West or at least that which Hume presupposes. The Logic announced in Tolkaappiyam (but misunderstood by the Naiyayikas and hence the Buddhists and Jainas) is Hermeneutic Logic and which is recovered in Meykandar in the body of SJB. In Hermeneutic Logic there is no deducing proving demonstrating and so forth but only of CLARIFYING for one self and for others (tan poruddu anumaanam , piRar poruddu anumaanam) so that AGREEMENT is possible among different individuals. It is circular in way but more helical for the proposition (pratiknja) is RECOVERED as the truth (Nigamana) i.e. as something agreed upon between the interlocutors.
Here the notion of TEXT along with DUALITY of Structure, the Deep Structure (DS) and Surface Structure (SS) are important. The SS is the commonly perceivable, the DS is that which is the DEPTHS of SS, serves as Agentive Cause and which has to be wrested out from the depths and appropriated as part of consciousness by way of understanding the object. A common analogy given in the Indian texts for this Anumana - going from the explicitly given to the HIDDEN (maRaipoRuL) is that of the smoke in the hill and from which one concludes the presence of the FIRE there but invisible to the eyes.
In the act seeing, the seer is given already as the one who sees. Now from this primordial act of seeing there is a generation of a TEXT with a duality of structure - the DS and SS. The ‘rock’ is seen in the seeing of a person and such seeing of the same rock may differ from individual to individual. We may institute MEASUREMENTS so that over and above the differences in the individual seeing, there can be a sameness for e.g., the density size porosity and so forth. In such cases the primordial act of seeing is re-constituted as the positively objective seeing - the sensorial seeing and nothing else and hence as that which allows measurements. This is the kind of seeing on which Hume (and the bulk of Western philosophers) remain fixated. This kind of positive objective seeing FIXATES the seeing to the ROCK in itself making the person forgetful of the seer of the seeing. Of course this has the advantage of disclosing what the rock is from within itself, free of the emotional aesthetic and such other subjective correlates of the seer.
The disadvantage of course is the cutting of the self as the seer and hence a blindness towards the self-constitution of self as the objective seer devoid of emotions aesthetics and such intention related aspects that he brings along with in every act of seeing. The deductive inductive logic and so forth is a product of such self-constitution but without an awareness of such a self transformation.
In contrast to this Hermeneutic Logic avoids this blindness by taking everything seen as a TEXT in a way - something written (or read) by the seer and retaining the seer as part of the what is seen. The SS of the rock seen, and as seen by a person is a reading of that person and one can go into the DS by a process of logical thinking called Anumana and UNDERSTAND better the SS so that our UNDERSTANDING is improved upon- we LEARN more about it and has a better understanding of it.
But the attention can shift also to the seer the producer of a text as such and such and why different individuals generate different texts of the SAME ROCK (i.e. read differently and write differently). With such a turn to reflective thinking, the seer, the self that does the seeing becomes the TEXT again with a DUALITY of structure DS and SS. Here the SS is the intentional self, the Asat-Self and DS is the Sat-Self, a distinction that Sankara (or for that matter all Indian idealists) never understood. Now as a second order and genuinely metaphysical reflections when the Sat-Self itself is appropriated as a TEXT only then we can understand the presence of BEING as the DS of this Sat-Self, BEING as the Cosmic Dancer and who dances even deep within.
Loga-1
The pacu that is called 'self' and
is different form BEING (God Brahman) etc,
(GCM: Then Brahman cannot be all-inclusive and infinite and omniscient and
omnipotent, etc.)
Log