Martin
indeed, this is a tricky subject. My impression was, and I say this partly
on the basis that the listee sent the post in question b-c to me last
Saturday, as he couldn't get through, was that he was talking about the
impact of that notion as a new idea, which, one must admit, is an
uncomfortable thought.
Now whatever philosophical sophistications I might pretend to, I must
concede that, at the moment of death, however much I search for appropriate
references, if conscious, I might well be terrified out of my mind, despite
my theories of the self.
My ramshackle musings wander about ideas of this being like so 'objectively'
but not so 'experientially'. They are very threadbare thoughts though.
Anyhow, I don't want to get 'heavy' about a very heavy subject, enuff now
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin J. Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: FW: AI's Elegies
> These are very knotty questions which are not as simple as saying "the
self
> is an illusion, amen." For Heidegger, as I understand it, Being (das Sein)
> is indefinable by being-there (Dasein), which all persons have in common:
> their selves are constituted by that community & their language (based on
> understanding,Verstehen, plus Rede, speech), both of which also imply the
> project (Entwurf) & the care (Sorge), the latter comprehending the past &
> present as the condition & the future as the field of self-realization
which
> must end in death, thus my dread (Angst) until I affirm death as my most
> real possibility, thus devaluing in a sense all the projects etc of
> Being-there & attaining authentic existence, though Being is always
far-off.
> The transcendent Self of the Upanishads is actually closer to Being than
> Being-there, thus only a logical step forward (and a lot of meditation)
was
> necessary for Gautama to realize _sambodhi_ as the illumination that
> transcends the object-subject of normal consciousness: this results in
> _nirvana_, in which the distinctions of the normal self have vanished.
> Thus in both philosophies the normal self is something to be transcended
as
> not finally constitutive of Being, but it is hardly a simple illusion.
> Heidegger would presumably frown on any belief in survival after death as
> inauthentic.
> I can't understand why you find the implications of non-self <a bit
scary>,
> as death (nothingness) will relieve you of your self in any case, a much
> scarier consideration I would have thought; I myself shall be quite happy
to
> wander around the Bardo or various reincarnations before being relieved of
> self, if death is not the end. Amen.
> Martin
>
|