Buddhism rejects the self and accepts a notion of non-self. It preceded bundle theory and no-ownership theory, which is in some way a formulation of this.
Hume pushed the bundle theory but could not understand what is there if it were only experiences. What he seem to left out is memory.
The self is just a collection of this matter-related memories. In this way, it does not go against the principles of one being “created” by the environment. A person is not independent of the place and time he or she is at or in. She or he is a product of it.
Property is theft, said Proudhon. Self-property is to steal and rob from the world of what you could contribute to it. That could be rightly called selfishness. To act without being the owner of the spirit is selflessness.
The philosophy of mind seeks to answer such questions as: is mind distinct from matter? Can we define what it is to be conscious, and can we give principled reasons for deciding whether other creatures are conscious, or whether machines might be made so that they are conscious? What are thinking, feeling, experience, remembering? Is it useful to divide the functions of the mind up, separating memory from intelligence, or rationality from sentiment, or do mental functions form an integrated whole?
Flew and Priest
The first two questions brings up important concepts – mind and conscious(ness). the first question seems to assume that the mind is already is some kind of existent object. The second question assumes also to be conscious is a state that can be had or not had. And by the act of reification one can either own or not own consciousness, again assuming consciousness is a kind of object. The worst case scenario is that language forces us to talk and think about mind and consciousness as objects because language frames them as such. The third question is more interesting, trying to answer the nature of thought, emotions and experience. The fourth question is about the categories of the contents of thought.
For me, the study of mind must start with the question of the mind’s ontological status, the question of its existence or non-existence. This is true of consciousness as well. If it does then how is it different to existent matter. And if it does not then how do we account for it.
The dominant philosophies of mind in the current western tradition include varieties of physicalism and functionalism. For particular topics see also cognition, emotion, language, memory, mind-body problem.
Flew and Priest
I am tend to the physicalist position here. I kind of disagree with functionalism because the questions they ask tend to assume an existent mind while ignoring the embodied aspect of the mind. In other words, the philosophy of mind should, in my opinion, be relabeled as the philosophy of brain.
Until recently I didn’t know when wordpress.com (not wordpress.org) started – late 2005.
And this blog, signature103, was my first blog anywhere online. I started it on this day in February 2006. This makes me a kind of early adopter here.
The blog is older than my daughter so it’s a kind of journal and journey of this time.
Many of my most important thoughts are made public here. and sometimes I have been affected, both positively and negatively, by comments and interactions. But it was important to be open to the public. Withdrawing from the world is a form of fear.
I started this blog because I had read an article about a lady (whose name I don’t remember) who had put her life into the public domain. It came with dangers of course but it also was freeing. It helped her engage with the world.
I too wanted to engage with the world. And I am thankful to have done so with this blog.
Blogging hasn’t been best social media to engage with the world though but it is still an important one. It has its purpose among all the other ways we engage with the now.
So, thank you, wordpress.com. Thank you, readers.
love was simple
that was all
love needed to be
to answer your love
was easy, it was pure
from some place
called the heart
it asked for nothing
but gave everything
and still it is the
same doubtless love
and has remained
as easy to replied to
as twenty years ago
not necessarily blocks
in view, visible
like paper then unfolded
creases can never be uncreased
frozen colours shades shadows
the painter’s shift shown
delineated merged into
something called cubist art
how to show
all too well
Originally published in 2013.
You cannot throw out what you have not bought. This is the purest form of reduction. Choose not to reduce use of something but rather stop usage from the beginning.
Just a thought.
In a causal conversation that went to the topic of Kondo Mariko the famous cleaner upper guru it was said she quit her system because it cannot cope with the variable of children.
This to me is hilarious and a sad truth of systems we set up. As long as the parameters are within limits it works. Beyond the limits and the system fails.
This, I think, is a great analogy for sustainability. Every since I have had kids the idea of sustainability has been thrown out the window. I simply cannot cope. The effort to bring things within sustainable means will, I believe, end with divorce or in death. I am not saying this jokingly. Today’s reality is without exaggeration beyond sustainability.
Problem: in the iOS app, the “return” key gives you a new paragraph when you only want a single line return.
- click the “…” icon on the bottom right;
- choose “Transform block” > “Verse”;
- type your poem;
- choose “Transform block” > “Paragraph”.
This way, you have complete control of the layout of the poem.