|
Hi Alan,
***It is apparantly precisely the process of making matches that seems to be at the core of creation and freedom.***
That is also apparent to me. I have no trouble accepting that, and I am in awe of your descriptions about how that process works. But...
When you say
***The question: "who exactly is this 'one' you refer to?" involves your trying to make a match (between what you tag as "who" and what you tag as "one".) ***
you glibly refer to me with the words 'your' and 'you'. You talk about my trying to make a match, and me tagging various things. (I'm having deja vu. I think we have been through this before.)
It is too easy to assume that each of us six billion living people is an independent conscious entity, because that is what any sane person would claim. But in the interest of rigor, I do not want to make that assumption but instead probe the possibilities for the identity of the self.
I think we can agree that whatever the self is, it is the thing that exercises what seems to be free will to do things like trying to make matches, or tagging words with various symbols. But what more can we make of it?
***Asking "who" some "one" is, seems a funny kind of question.***
Yes, I have a habit of asking funny questions.
***One could keep following it with similar questions?***
Can we really? I don't think so. I have never bought into the possibility, or the idea of, "infinite regression". If you actually set about trying it, you end up stopping somewhere. For example, when you exhaust the dictionary when trying to define terms.
In this case, of trying to pin down identity, I don't think you can keep following my question with similar ones. When you get down to what is the fundamental thing going on to and by my self, you get down to the perception that thought happens.
So my question becomes, who is doing the thinking? (Your pattern matching discussion takes off on a tangent, exploring what that thinking might be accomplishing. I want to haul you back and examine the thinker itself.)
***Ultimately things ARE. They are. Not are something else. Just ARE.***
You use the term 'ultimately' seems to agree with my position that you can't keep going with this regression ad infinitum. It does stop somewhere, and I agree with you that it stops with pure and simple existence.
But, what are the "things" you refer to which ARE? Well, if we go back to the fundamental thing we know, we have identified two things: a thinker and thoughts. Now, the thoughts can't exist independent of a thinker, so they are not the "things" we are looking for. That leaves the thinker.
Now, using Occam's Razor without official permission, it is my contention that a thinker is all that is required for all of existence.
***God is Existence is Love***
I have no problem with using any of those synonyms for the thinker.
Warm regards,
Paul |
