ABHINAVA - The Letters of Gary. C. Moore - Athenaeum Library of Philosophy

I hesitated to post this at all since it falls under something closer to 'manners' then 'Philosophy'. It was under the heading 'Where I am coming from" in my notebook I wrote my thoughts down in before coming back here.

ANTONIO:
I've gone through your post with great curiosity, because it seems to me it is a news inside a old-structured world.

I'll insert some thoughts of mine here and there in between.

Visual (non-verbal) language is often essential to identify the context which a word gains its meaning inside.

MARIA:
I agree and use it a lot trying to explain some concept I have that I have no other words for. But I think it is just as important to learn ways to express myself so I wont need to use analogy and such so often.

ANTONIO:
Hi Maria. You are referring to what I call "Effectiveness of Communication" here. My belief is, EC depends on the listener's openmindedness far more than on the speaker's "ways to express myself "Philosophy"... what does this term stand for? In time, I came to admit that it stands for "the history of the human thinking", just a sort of depository of what has been already thought and known -- rather than, literally, "love for knowing".

MARIA:
It will become that only if we let it though. It was a true love for learning that led me to reading many types of books that led me to the Umberto Eco yahoo group where I met someone who told me of these groups.

ANTONIO:
Do you read Italian? Affirmatively, I would like to send you the copy of a letter U. E. wrote to me three decades ago. I'm pointing out this difference because many of today's "official philosophers do not love 'creative' thinking, but conservative thinking only -- at least, that is what looks like to the amateur philosopher I am ;-)

MARIA:
I dont think anyone could call themselves anything but an 'amateur' in this kind of context though. I will say that many philosophers are worth reading though. If only to help you define what you do not believe but more usually to help you find words to use. In that way I think 'Philosophy' can be thought of as a sort of "jig-saw" for the mind or intellect. Reading ideas presented can give you the edge pieces that help you figure out how big the puzzle is and also allow you to start filling it in. I think both the things you 'hold true' and the things you do not agree with are these edge pieces though.

ANTONIO:
Again, it depends on the listener's (reader's) openmindedness far more than on the writer's "ways to express him-herself" in what is called "philosophy". Of course, "philosophy" helps; but the reader's openmindedness MUST be prior to it. (IMHO)

MARIA:
Social Ideas. As much as I want to I can't afford an isolated cottage in the South of France (yet) so other people are a reality I have to deal with. The basic idea I have about society boils down to 'live and let live'.

ANTONIO:
Unfortunately, as far as you inhabit a society among other inhabitants, you have to deal with 'politics'. Here the "live and let live" concept doesn't work any much, because, even when you don't meddle with politics, it is politics that meddles with you.

Of course, I could happily ignore some unpleasant outcomes of politics -- some policies that hurt me in a collectivity made with a people's majority that accepts indoctrinations and tricky suggestions and manufactured opinions, because I'm old now. But I have children, whom I feel myself still responsible for. So I can't accept to be one of the "many people [who] are content to let others think for them." Therefore I must interact, something else but "live and let live".

MARIA:
By the 'live and let live' comment I meant I wont make it my business to learn everything they do and think and expect the same consideration in return. If they have a different idea of what the front yard should look like it doesn't matter since I do not plan to change mine to something they would appreciate more. And also I will tend to hang around people who share a lot in common with me in some way as well. How about 'you go your way, I'll go mine' instead then?

ANTONIO:
Unfortunately, different ways have often crossing points. Only parallel ways have not. I do not care for parallel ways, but for crossing roads, where the other's way overcomes mine -- or mine overcomes the other's. In the special case of politics, "they" enter your yard.

MARIA:
My interests cover a wide range of things and can't neatly be put into a box and labeled so extending that courtesy to others is important. I guess I see 'defining' people as the "good" way to label them. How do we begin to understand others without trying to label them is one thing that interests me deeply. I try to tell myself that my intentions are "honest" so my labels are different from what other people mean by them but it doesn't work somehow. Always keeping this basic idea in the back of my mind so I don't "judge" others is an important part of my ideas as a whole. Imagine my delight when I was reading on Russell's paradox and came across a much more eloquent way of stating this idea: so-called vicious circle principle, a principle which, in effect, states that no propositional function can be defined prior to specifying the function's range. In other words, before a function can be defined, one first has to specify exactly those objects to which the function will apply.

ANTONIO:
What about, if the applied object is the function itself ? How it works to set up communication?

MARIA:
Well, luckily, I could turn to words already defined under 'math'
(or under computer programming even) and explain it using terms we both understood. So it would be more explaining why the function exists and what it is meant to do then the other way around of figuring out how to go about something.

ANTONIO:
Well, once we shared what does the term "function" stand for, we have done a half only of the road. The second half reads: "Now, what could we do with it?"

I insist on this point because of an axiom I've got from my friend Augusto Corsini:

In un-healthy schemes the structure governs the function; in healthy schemes the function governs the structure.

Sorry for my bad English translation. I believe you understand very well the meaning, and where I wanted to drive to: in one word, "pragmatics"
Wait a bit, Maria. The idea that I could force others into little boxes sounds strange to me. I don't accept it.

MARIA:
I think some things have certain associations connected to them. So when I hear "rose" I picture this one moment in time when the sun was shining, a gentle breeeze was in the air and the scent and beauty of this one rose bloom was almost overpowering. So when I hear 'rose' I will give it automatically some sort of very positive association. Just as I have some when I hear the word 'Materialism'. I want to automatically shake my head and say wait a second let me look at this closer to see what is wrong with it. So there is a negative 'little box' for anything regarding 'Materialism' before I have even read what they wrote. It requires a conscious effort on my part to not begin looking at anything I think is relating to Materialism as 'wrong' somehow since I can miss many ideas I might like by only searching for 'the flaws'.

ANTONIO:
It might be, what is 'wrong' is not in the word 'materialism' but in the reader's "positive vs. negative" mindframe. Which could function like the "either-or" mindframe: something else but the "and-and" one.

To give you an example: I take any "negative" antithesis to be the necessary verifying of the related "positive" thesis.

To tell you more on this "negative language" topic: go please and read to http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rossin01.htm

The fact is, four decades ago I had a job as a psychiatrist. All what I had to do, it was just forcing others into small boxes, under labels. But they were people "content to let others think [and act] for them"! And "the system" seemed quite comfortable with all of that. The system but myself, so I had to change my job, because I didn't want to force the unaware in anything. So I started to analyze, and try, awareness, in which terms "it" can exist (or can be sensed as such).

MARIA:
I sometimes have to wonder about myself! I honestly was about to write 'No, "what a psychiatrist is" is blah blah bah' when I realized what I was doing. When you think of it though what 'they' do is try to help someone, but dealing in an area that is foggy and murky at best.

ANTONIO:
I've been one of them for a while. Finally, I had to ask my colleagues: "Why, instead of helping them when they have fallen down to mental sickness, don't we try to search for how to prevent them from falling down there?"

They (my colleagues) took me as mad. "mental ilnesses have a genetic origin", they stated, according with the pharmaceutic factories owners who drive (by funding it) the scientific research to that direction exclusively.

MARIA:
I think it is the job of one to give the person a 'label' or word that allows them to define it on a conscious level where they can learn to deal with it -whatever it may be. It is expected of them in a way but in a good way I think.

ANTONIO:
Better we learn, and teach them, not to undergo any "deal with" by the psychiatrist...

MARIA:
I look forward to seeing your ideas soon, Antonio!

First Fig ... Edna St Vincent Mallay

My MARIA: burns at both ends; It will not last the night; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends-- It gives a lovely light!

MARIA:
Da Vinci Code

A new member rudely jumping in with both feet here. I was reading through posts and saw this one and wanted to comment. My speech is informal so I hope you will look past that as I try to use more formal language. I am not even sure whose (Gary C. Moore maybe?) writing I am commenting on but I find them very interesting and hope they forgive me for taking them out of context of what he wrote into the context of what I wonder about. I find myself smiling very big as I think that what prompted this thread was a "Kojak" show. I think I will enjoy this group very much.

GARY. C. MOORE:
I think I am the person, but then what is a 'person'? I shall, after this, send a section of a book by Ray Monk on Bertrand Russell on 'complexes' versus 'concepts' which I think is relevant to you. Since 'umberto_eco' is already a public forum, and my original letter was sent to several other groups, I shall send this letter to the same forums. If you wish to examine those groups, note the addresses above when you receive this.

Strangely enough I was in the process of 'editing' some information on an Estonian stamp souvenir sheet of a print by Estonian artist Eduard Viralt [1898-1954], a period of time in Estonia to acquaint the inhabitants thoroughly with all the meanings of 'Hell', including Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Hell is other people'. The print, in one sense, simply is simply faces in gray on black. In another sense, faces within faces which, in many ways, I think is relevant to several things I have written lately and illuminates Heidegger's term 'being-with' and the presupposition/predisposition of history within the complex of the 'self'. And remember, MEMORY is HISTORY and all history, as a LIVING 'entity' is within YOUR memory.

To other readers, note that, in Maria's text, she is quoting my original letter if that is not clear in re-sending and re-production.

Birth Centenary of Eduard Wiiralt. Date issued: 18 Feb 1998. Designer: L. L�hmus. Paper: ordinary. Print process: offset. Perf: comb. 13 3/4 : 14. Stamp size: 27.5 x 33 mm. Size Souvenir Sheet: 79 x 94 mm. Print run: 250.000. Michel #s: Block12 (318-321). Scott 337 A88. 3.60 (Kr). grey-black. Fragment of picture E. Wiiralt �P�rgu�. 3.60 (Kr). grey-black. Fragment of picture E. Wiiralt �P�rgu�. 5.50 (Kr). grey-black. Fragment of picture E. Wiiralt �Enfer�. 5.50 (Kr). grey-black. Fragment of picture E. Wiiralt �Enfer�. 3.50/3.50 � 2006 FSU New Issues

http://home.nestor.minsk.by/fsunews/estonia/1998/ee318-21.html

MARIA:
"Maybe memory is systematized by a search for a specific meaning. Your question just brought that thought out. We both pursue an answer to the question, What is the true nature of human nature? � " I found this a very interesting thought and wanted to comment on it. Memory plays such an important role in who we become and the things we chose to remember that it gave me a lot to think about. "Specific Meanings" naturally range from the most common level of `why did I do that?' to more spiritual ones such as `Why am I here?'. But I do believe each person has some sort of basic `list' that they spend their lives trying to answer, whether the list is conscious or not is another interesting question I will save for some other thread.

GARY. C. MOORE:
I think such a list is a fascinating idea as a concept/complex, and would love to hear much more about it.

MARIA:
I wonder though if there is a `true nature' in the first place. If you do not believe that there is a set `human nature' in that sense then it is pointless to try to discover it. Perhaps I am oversimplifying things too much in my attempt to find the lowest common denominator and I apologize if so.

GARY. C. MOORE:
No! I think you are right on point in your thinking process! But you must retain the whole process because the history of forming the 'thought' is, in fact, actually the thought itself � which I think is a much clearer expression of several things I have been trying to turgidly say elsewhere.

Is there a human nature? Sartre would say no, but from his point of view he is perfectly correct. For it is just an abstraction and only individuals are real. But individuals wonder about their nature, and the very process of linguistic communication and the learning of history from others that becomes your personal history � think of 'history' in very broad terms including all that is in your memory, especially what you have 'learned' from others � you see the absurdity of a philosophically solipsistic position even though solipsism actually perfectly portrays the way you actually exist, live. You can only know your own thoughts and feelings and perception even though perception seems to include a so-called public world. So asking about 'human nature' is really a question of what context the term is used within. Everything is 'within' contexts, but these contexts are neither necessarily conscious or organized in any necessary way except by reality, history, and the basic rules of term identification, that is, logic and the grammar those terms are used within � again. This is way, in the Russell paper, I think Russell's concern about 'shadowy concepts' is bogus, that is, true terms construct a false proposition. Dreams can only be visions of logically identifiable objects. Imagination creates all things out of real sensations.

MARIA:
I think there is a distinct difference between `human nature' and `human' and look at things from that perspective. It is oversimplifying things to say it is down to `corrupted or perverted' individuals and throwing in that old saying `a rotten apple spoils the bunch' must make you cringe as well. I do believe in things spiritual and also believe `mankind' misses out on a lot by denying it.

GARY. C. MOORE:
Richard would disagree with me but I find 'corrupted and perverted' is merely a matter of context and purely in the eye of the beholder. However, that said, within his context, Richard is perfectly correct and valid, that is, it is a reality working within a systematic schedule of values. This same statement applies to things 'spiritual'. They do necessarily have to be 'things' because everyone understands what you say more or less, and that deserves a philosophical discussion all in itself. The Russell paper is DIRECTLY relevant to this. Meinong would deny the reality of the 'spiritual' but Russell, though reluctantly, would say the false proposition 'the spiritual exist' needs A] precise definition and analysis since it is historically a very important concept, and B] must, of rational necessity, be made up of real FACTS, though those 'facts' may not deserve to belong together in a true proposition.

MARIA:
I am reading many philosophy books to try to find better words for my ideas so hope you will bear with me as I learn and can communicate better as time goes on. But it does involve what we can be and how we are. An example of what I mean would be a group of college students earnestly discussing poetry. Looking for and finding deeper meanings and discussing them fills their time and they think well of themselves. But none actually delve inside themselves and write poetry. You can argue that they can get a degree and teach literature and poetry or become an `expert' on it so it wasn't wasted time. But suppose the point of life was to be poets? How you spent your whole life finding and discovering meaning only to realize you "missed the point" of it all. I am very sorry that is the best example I can come up with right now. I hope it does show what I mean by the difference between `human nature' and `human' and corruption of it. I do hope my comments over time improve as I am sure you do as well so I wanted to thank you for bearing with me as I struggle along here.

GARY. C. MOORE:
I have written extensively of Abhinavagupta's aesthetic theory. He was a Kasmiri non-dualist Hindu philosopher around 1000 CE. Jud Evans can direct to to what I said at his beautiful and mind expanding web site noted below in my 'signature'. It is a web site I KNOW you can get a very great deal out of. It would be a great idea to write Jud directly at the analytical theory address above and tell him what you think of it. To put Abhinava's theory shortly, and though he did 'write' a great deal of poetry, he essentially says it makes no difference. It is the EXPERIENCE regardless of reading or writing that one seeks, and that that literary experience is more powerful than the religious experience of the most powerful yogi.

JUD:
Letters to Nowhere - The relevant Url is:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/orientalphil.htm

MARIA:
And jumping to another interesting comment "It does form the nature of time � I almost said 'human time', but what other time can there be? All time exists as observed, examined, analyzed, and always needs a human being to do this. So all time is human time. " "But what other time can there be?" seems to me a most important question. I often wonder if `the great minds' had that very question before them what they would have made of it. (I am not familiar enough with Eco's work to know if he addressed this question yet or not. And perhaps many philosophers I have yet to discover covered this exact question) I do think that we `humans' see ourselves as the center of the universe and all things revolve around us. I think the main question is how do we get `outside ourselves' to even try to answer it.

This seems familiar to me but can't remember if it is Kant or not: "Even more, the only observer, examiner, analyzer I in actual fact really, physically experience is me. Everything else exists as reported, and exists 'as reported' to only me. This is the true nature of human existence: a certain special � 'metaphysical' if you will � aloneness that absolutely can only be experienced by an absolutely single person. " It is an interesting idea as well and seems to naturally follow my last paragraph. I don't agree with this thought totally. It seems to narrow things too much but in the wrong way. The best image I can think of right off hand is that saying of `putting the cart before the horse'. It just seems wrong to me and I will need to think about it more before getting a satisfactory answer. It stems from the idea of putting ourselves at the center of things again. I think perhaps I will need to read more of Kant (if it is Kant I am thinking of) before I can intelligently discuss this. I am sure you wont hold your breaths but I do hope you are interested enough that I can bring it up again some later time.

"But this is still just meaningless abstraction until pain is introduced. People fear death. It is a multitude of different kinds of pain to them. " This makes me want to ask a list of questions about the others on this list so I can get a sense of `where they are coming from'. I would say that the person who wrote that experienced war in a personal way instead of watching it on tv as I have here. Which does illustrate beautifully the `aloneness' comment he made.

"To take such values outside of that seriously is to make them historical, social � POLITICAL! " This comment I agree with even if I am not sure I support it 100%. But I do dislike taking something important and turning it `political' in the worst sense of that word.

"The very determination of what is important and unimportant is based on what 'survives', that is, quite literally, what survives death. Of course, I am sure, including me, myself, and I, will object one can have real values while alive. But the real question is, Has one honestly analyzed these values in terms of what they will mean to you after your dead." This is another one of those important questions I wish more people would ask themselves. But that seems to bring in `religion' instead of spiritual things in some way to my mind that I don't think the person meant. It is like my `student of poetry' and `poet' idea I tried explaining earlier. You can so easily `miss the point' that how do you know if you are a poet creating poetry or merely a reader and lover of poems?

A question: Is the `me, myself and I' part of someone's philosophy that I am missing a reference to because I have not read them yet?
(and I will end up blushing furiously if it was Eco who uses it!!). Reading it calls to mind Freud more then anyone else though and I am not sure if the writer intended that or ...

Here is an image I would love to hear your comments on as regards death. Take your life as merely one working day in a normal week in a normal month of a normal year for you. That day would include all the things you do before leaving the house and differs person to person. Call this time our childhood. Then the drive to and from work each day. Would this be our memory or perhaps our friends and family? Then your place in the office could change if you were promoted or demoted or even laid off. It would call for redefining yourself in some way but those events are rare in a normal sort of way. Naturally they do happen but not to everyone every day in the normal way of things. Where would you fit the people whose lives were changed by this event outside the `normal'? And your office could have many floors and many people doing many different things but they all work for the same company. That sounds so trite when applied to `races' though, doesn't it? Then your normal after work experiences would differ person to person. Some may be saving for a house and work 2 jobs or have a very active social life and rarely go straight home and others rush home to their families, perhaps stopping for something on the way. Then doing whatever it is you do to get ready for bed each night. That would be my idea of `death', the sleeping until you wake up and do it again. You work 5 days a week, have vacations, etc. and do it over and over again means to me there is a plan and goals to accomplish. When do you retire and do you get to chose what you do are ideas I hope to explore. I am sorry this is such a rushed idea but I am actually on my way out the door with my children telling me to hurry up. I hope you will not fear disagreeing with me or saying I am just plain wrong since I love hearing other ideas. Even if I think they are wrong they do give me reference points and markers to point to when I am finding my way through things.

And this quote "And yet this is all nonsense, pure foolishness on my part. " I almost want to turn into my `signature' for emails!

"The very determination of what is important and unimportant is based on what 'survives', that is, quite literally, what survives death. Of course, I am sure, including me, myself, and I, will object one can have real values while alive. But the real question is, Has one honestly analyzed these values in terms of what they will mean to you after your dead." This is another one of those important questions I wish more people would ask themselves. But that seems to bring in `religion' instead of spiritual things in some way to my mind that I don't think the person meant. It is like my `student of poetry' and `poet' idea I tried explaining earlier. You can so easily `miss the point' that how do you know if you are a poet creating poetry or merely a reader and lover of poems?

GARY. C. MOORE:
An extremely fascinating comparison! I would never have thought of it and do not understand it entirely as of yet, but I sense this is exactly the way Wittgenstein would have approached it. I originally meant in relating to three negative senses � 1] 'No one reports back from the grave' as in Hamlet's soliloquy � 2] 'The evil that men do lives after the, the good lies buried with their bones' � I think JUSLIUS CAESAR � 3] If they are immortal ideas or ideals, immortal substances, then either how can they be said to survive if someone does not maintain them in thought or how can they survive as entities of any sort? � the point being that morality can only be meaningful in the relations between living people and idealizing morality lifts it out of this world into another where it has no relation to action or any other purpose. I think that does agree with what you say, but I think you put it better, that is, it is something meant to be done and not simply, purely analyzed.

That's all right, except, considering Abhinavagupta, the superiority of aesthetic experience beyond spiritual whether in reading and writing, is reflected � and I would not have thought of this without you � in Aristotle's NICOMACHIAN ETHICS and his METAPHYSICS. They both begin on the pragmatic plain of 'What are the facts of the matter' very admirably. Aristotle delineates, not defines, 'good' and 'bad' and 'evil' on a very case by case basis on a very pragmatic field of action, clarifying some rules like the Golden Mean. But it is the Golden Mean itself that shows his ETHICS is extremely different from modern popular ethics. It follows the tradition Greek ethos of 'Nothing in excess', of keeping everything in balance AS THE PRIMARY RULE OF MORALITY, not a method of maintaining a balance between conflicting and sometimes irreconcilable rules. Aristotle is not an ethical rule man. In his portrait of the 'ideal' judge, his judge seeks no ideal of justice whatsoever but strives to maintain a balance as satisfactory to all parties as possible. Murder must be punished severely. In classical Greek society, this was an ethical burden recognized by both sides in the trial. Murder must be punished both for the prosecution and the defense. But Aristotle and the classical Greeks saw execution of the murderer as solving no ones' problems whatsoever. There is no balance to that, no Golden Mean. The act of balancing is a pragmatic and actual mental act and therefore has no relation whatsoever to any higher ideal of 'JUSTITIA'. So in someway the judge wants to 'replace' the murdered man in his family in some fashion. Traditionally, this was done by blood money. On rare occasions, the murderer took the place of the murdered man in his family. The only thing the judge strives for is to satisfy both parties as best as possible. But this is just pragmatics.

The purpose of ethics and the purpose of thinking, ultimately, are the same in Aristotle. He illustrates this in very similar fashion in both texts. It is the contemplation of God. It is a purification of all that is contingent. The reason why it can work rationally is because 'purification of contingency' in thought, in itself, is a rational process, just as in contemplating true and false propositions in Russell and his 'shadowy concepts' he so disliked. It is the word 'God' everyone gets so upset about. It is not any of the personified pagan gods, that is for sure, and the clues SEEM to lead to a supreme intellectual state like your poet writing poetry or Abhinavagupta reading Shankatula's KALIDASA. Thank you.

Full fadom five thy father lies; Of his bones are coral made; Those are pearls that were his eyes: Nothing of him that doth fade, But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange. Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell: Ding-dong. Hark! Now I hear them, Ding-dong bell.

CALIBAN

MARIA:
A question: Is the `me, myself and I' part of someone's philosophy that I am missing a reference to because I have not read them yet?
(and I will end up blushing furiously if it was Eco who uses it!!). Reading it calls to mind Freud more then anyone else though and I am not sure if the writer intended that or ...

GARY. C. MOORE:
Jud, how are you doing with Eco's KANT AND THE PLATYPUS? Obviously we would all be interested.

In one sense, it is a constant everywhere. But in another sense it is a subject so varied, going under so many different names. Listed under different subjects and even methodologies, that one can easily missed what is being talked about.

The first thing to realize is that English egotism, as express in the single letter 'I' is the most intense in the world. Even French and German speakers � and English speakers try to make believe both of them are trying to corner the cultural arrogance market - have noted the utter arrogance of English speakers they derive from this fact. But many languages do not even normally use any self referent in their language, including it in the verb as obvious and assumed.

This is just the beginning. Self identity in an ordinary, every PERSON shape, is a newcomer on the historical stage. A 'person' was originally merely an accrual of his adjectives, social placement, abilities, accomplishments, etc. Even the Greeks and Romans, who seem enormously egotistic to us, thought more or less in this fashion. But it was Paul with his newly created Christianity, Nietzsche pointing out, created the importance of the personal self � immortal, and to be judged personally at the end of time by God himself. Now that is Egotism.

Other cultures literally break up the self into numerous parts. This can be seen very clearly, especially in the original Greek, in the ILIAD where each part of the body has an identity and 'personality' and will of its own. Michael Crichton, in his novel RISING SUN, says a Japanese changes personality as they walk from room to room in their home. We change our identity, ways, approach, expression, manner of feeling, depending upon whom we speak to. 'Would you talk to your mother that way?' The brain is literally not a unity at all but divided up into several differently functional but mutually influential and sometimes violently conflicting parts. Schizophrenics have said not only have they heard the voice of God but that that voice was more 'real' than the doctor standing before them talking to them. Hume has described the human personality as a congress of different individuals trying to agree on a unified doctrine the leader is suppose to speak for all of them. This is what being of 'a divided mind' expresses.

Language itself, much of what we have been discussing about Russell and propositions, essentially says � ontologically � human identity is a proposition. And Kant said something very similar when, discussing the nature of self identity, ,first said it was identical to a mathematical point, an imaginary object, and then was simply the subject joined with a verb to make a sentence. I used to think this made a human persona far too simplistic. Now I think it makes the human persona outrageously varied � which, in fact, is how it is as observed.

MARIA:
Here is an image I would love to hear your comments on as regards death.

GARY. C. MOORE:
Death itself, examined analytically, is almost always a no-thing. In the denigrative sense, it is confused with a number of things that have purely to do with experience, that is, in time. And they are usually very bad although not always. But it is all mere fantasy. Just like the rest of your letter, existence is just a going on and on and on. You do not know where and how you really begin, but just depend upon the reports of others and physiology and psychology textbooks. However, this is other peoples' ideas of how the history of your personal body is formed [Sartre has something very good to say about this in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty's PHENOMENOLGY OF PERCEPTION is absolutely fantastic].

But the history of your bodily existence is PURELY personal. Physiology and psychology textbooks give only supplementary help, and that very rarely. To understand death and life, even written in capital letters, when you get down to the rock bottom necessary and the ONLY thing in the universe that is relevant to anything whatsoever, is how you PERCEIVE, not conceive, LITERALLY your personal body. If you perceive it as it exists 'going on and on and on', it is terribly different from what you read in a textbook. There is a universe of difference between your hand and the physiological textbook hand. For one thing the hand is ALWAYS charged with the greatest importance whereas a doctor explaining the tendons, the nerves, the bones, even if interesting, is relevant to a living person only as their OWN hand.

Time, however it is done and that is FAR from clear and certainly very complicated, is constructed by your personal body. IT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTE GROUND OF THE CONCEPT OF TIME. Though physiology and psychology may add helpful details, your understanding of time IS ALWAYS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR PERSONAL BODY! [You can even see an aspect of this in Einstein's Revativity Theory]. Yours is the only standpoint, viewpoint, topos that ever absolutely matters to everything � 'everything' being enclosed in its whole context, within your personal body. The universe and all that is within it is an abstract idea learned about in school. If you die, do abstract ideas persist in some ethereal fashion? Of course not. Ideas exist only in a personal body's thoughts. So when you cease to exist the universe ceases to exist.

This actually can be seen in clinical observation. In Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' ON DEATH AND DYING, she delineates 5 stages of 'dying' derived directly from her clinical observations. [Dying and death are, in physiological reality, universes apart]. In the first four stages are desperate attempts rising up to absurdity on how to avoid death. The last stage is 'acceptance'. In that stage � but this is usually taken care of in the earlier stages by people not overwhelmed by hysteria and still somewhat rational � one may finalize one's life to help one's family get on with affairs after your dead. Not gone 'elsewhere' but dead, dead, dead. If ypou have touched a corpse you really know what 'dead' is. It is the same as the table it is lying on. It is the same as the floor the table is on. At that moment, illusions of ghosts, souls, any spiritual effluvia, can only be forced into one's mind by hysterical denial. As Jud says, Meat thinks, and you can FEEL meat not thinking.

A person in 'acceptance' cut themselves off, or prepare to cut themselves off, from the universe including all loved ones. You have heard of criminals saying "I have nothing to loose', but that is an excuse on their part to do whatever they want to. A person in acceptance truly knows they have nothing to loose and the very fabric of time and personal identity start to dissolve � gently. They certainly do not go out and kill their enemies. As Shankara would say, that is Jivanmukta while still alive. That is, it is salvation through utter detachment from absolutely everything, and in Shankara's case, it WOULD NOT be detachment FOR something else. Shankara would call it Brahman, but the point of his philosophy is that you always already ARE Brahman and spend a futile lifetime trying to realize that. The same is true with an atheist. You simply devolve to what you basically and truly are: That you truly possess nothing even when you are fully alive.

It can lead to some 'surprising' behavior according to us normal people [of course we are normal � are we not?]. I knew a woman � long, long dead now � who grew a rose on her cheek. She was constantly gazing at it in a mirror, admiring it. It was a petaled cancerous growth she refused the surgeons to take off. There was really no good reason to do so in the first place, but people in denial will grasp any straw to possibly save their lives. Obviously, if you have a fully grown rose on your cheek, you have 'roses' elsewhere within your body also. She awed me.

I think all this answers the rest of your letter also, does it not? Gary

Take your life as merely one working day in a normal week in a normal month of a normal year for you. That day would include all the things you do before leaving the house and differs person to person. Call this time our childhood. Then the drive to and from work each day. Would this be our memory or perhaps our friends and family? Then your place in the office could change if you were promoted or demoted or even laid off. It would call for redefining yourself in some way but those events are rare in a normal sort of way. Naturally they do happen but not to everyone every day in the normal way of things. Where would you fit the people whose lives were changed by this event outside the `normal'? And your office could have many floors and many people doing many different things but they all work for the same company. That sounds so trite when applied to `races' though, doesn't it? Then your normal after work experiences would differ person to person. Some may be saving for a house and work 2 jobs or have a very active social life and rarely go straight home and others rush home to their families, perhaps stopping for something on the way. Then doing whatever it is you do to get ready for bed each night. That would be my idea of `death', the sleeping until you wake up and do it again. You work 5 days a week, have vacations, etc. and do it over and over again means to me there is a plan and goals to accomplish. When do you retire and do you get to chose what you do are ideas I hope to explore. I am sorry this is such a rushed idea but I am actually on my way out the door with my children telling me to hurry up. I hope you will not fear disagreeing with me or saying I am just plain wrong since I love hearing other ideas. Even if I think they are wrong they do give me reference points and markers to point to when I am finding my way through things.

MARIA:
"Maybe memory is systematized by a search for a specific meaning. Your question just brought that thought out. We both pursue an answer to the question, What is the true nature of human nature? � " I found this a very interesting thought and wanted to comment on it. Memory plays such an important role in who we become and the things we chose to remember that it gave me a lot to think about. "Specific Meanings" naturally range from the most common level of `why did I do that?' to more spiritual ones such as `Why am I here?'. But I do believe each person has some sort of basic `list' that they spend their lives trying to answer, whether the list is conscious or not is another interesting question I will save for some other thread.

GARY. C. MOORE:
I think such a list is a fascinating idea as a concept/complex, and would love to hear much more about it.

MARIA:
I think I understand how to approach this kind of thing now. So it needs to sound something like:

The concept of Basic List contains the variables of Dreams, Desires, Wants and Needs and falls under the range of short term, mid term and long term goals and uses the Memory function, the Aware Function, the Chance Function and the Secret Function. Dreams refer to all the ways she can imagine spending her time and strongly influences all other variables. Desires refer to her intellectual and physical stimulation. Wants refers to things she would like to own. Needs are the relationships she has between herself and others. The Memory function is a database of yes/no results of every previous instance of her using the aware and secret functions and gives the probability of achieving that same response again. The Aware Function is her understanding of what she needs to do to accomplish any combination of variables and how to go about it. The Chance Function is silent and works out the ratio of 'influences outside her control vs. self' to her success or failure in achieving any given instance of running the Aware function but feeds it directly to the Secret function. The Secret function is silent since it works out how to accomplish a 'yes' response to whatever the Aware function failed to achieve and involves 'risk vs. reward'.

*** I will need to read the work you suggested about the whole concept/complex idea to figure out the framework for it and see if I can find the 'words' I mean somewhere too. But that is sort of the basic idea of it, but not complete since I am not sure how to include the 'levels of specific meaning' since it involves the 'why am I here' level that I always called spirit or mind before and I can't quite bring myself to calling it the 'Meat thinks level' :p That will be a fun one trying to find the right words for I think...