Lacan says language plays a role in individuation. — Mongrel

He got that right. As I suggested to Un, being an individual is something we inflict... using language.

You're probably giving us too much of an active role. What are we?

He got that right. As I suggested to Un, being an individual is something we inflict... using language.

And Banno reveals he's been a Post-structuralist all along.

If the truth here is relative, why try to help him regain his memory? Why talk of a "fugue' state? Why point out the abnormality in his brain chemistry and physiology?

If the truth here is relative, why try to help him regain his memory? Why talk of a "fugue' state? Why point out the abnormality in his brain chemistry and physiology? — Banno

Because doctors love to fool around and experiment with humans as if people are their little playthings. This is the roots of materialism and the dehumanization of humans making them into buggie machines that need to be constantly fixed. It's a great marketing angle.

I don't know if he wants to be left alone, but if he does, just leave him alone. Things may revert or they may not.

Meta-cognition makes it feel like yourself is trying to get outside itself to think about itself. Its a dizzying loop.

I don't know if he wants to be left alone... — Rich

X-)

But he should see a doctor - he's not himself.

He's not who you want him to be.

Its a dizzying loop. — La Cuentista

Which puts me in mind of Hofstadter's I am a Strange Loop.

Chaos theory was once fashionable; and I am rather fond of the idea of a strange loop explaining the self as a self-referentail system.

It strikes me as much clearer than quantum.

Who is asking?

Is it a rabbit or a duck?

By any other name I'd still be me.

But neither you nor anyone else can conceive what you are and what "you are" means without language.

And we would be us.

Here's the contention again:

An individual is not identified by a substance or a bundle of properties, but in most cases by our treating the individual in a certain way.

If you like, an individual is an individual only because we place it in that role in our language games.

"We" is used here, not "I", so as to show that this does not take place in a private language.

Here's the corollary with regard to the self. A self is an individual. So a self is a self because we place it in that role in our language games.


What's the corollary with regard to reincarnation?

An individual is not identified by a substance or a bundle of properties, but in most cases by our treating the individual in a certain way.

If you like, an individual is an individual only because we place it in that role in our language games.

In our language games and in our language. And as Lacan points out, the value of our words within our language vary, so our varied placements and movements within language also affect our value within our cultures/societies and our accesses to power.

Hm. Relevance?

↪Thanatos Sand Hm. Relevance?

Direct response to your post.

Yes, it was. What was its relevance?

What point are you making?

A direct response to your post doesn't have to explain its relevance. If you can't see it's relevance, I can't help you.

:-|
You wrote the bloody thing.

Here it is again, Banno. If you want to address it fine, If not, that's fine, too, but it certainly expands and expounds on what you wrote.

Banno
"An individual is not identified by a substance or a bundle of properties, but in most cases by our treating the individual in a certain way.

If you like, an individual is an individual only because we place it in that role in our language games"

In our language games and in our language. And as Lacan points out, the value of our words within our language vary, so our varied placements and movements within language also affect our value within our cultures/societies and our accesses to power.

If you reject reincarnation it's because that game isn't played in your community.

Yep.

If you accept reincarnation, then is reincarnation arbitrary?

If there are memories to link one self to anther, then that's fine. But if there are no memories, then can i be the reincarnation of whomever I choose?

Do you have eidetic memory?

Anamnesis.

No.

If there are memories, as in the cases described above, then the reincarnation can be discovered; evidence collated, explanations assessed and conclusions reached.

If not, then reincarnation can be prescribed; "this child is the reincarnation of the Thirteenth Lama".

The roll it plays in our language games would be quite different.

The skandhas don't reincarnate, as their nature is temporary. — Wayfarer

Are you sure? To my knowledge the skandhas are supposed to account for a person's material and mental existence. For example "rupa" which is the body's matter clearly does reincarnate, because when you die, your atoms go and become part of other bodies. Is this not "reincarnation"?

It seems you also suggest that if something's nature is temporary, then it does not reincarnate, but how do we arrive at this link? Why do only permanent things reincarnate? Because to me, it seems that quite the contrary, permanent things do not reincarnate, for reincarnation implies birth, and as you yourself cited, unborn things don't get born.

It's worth recalling the original statement as to what constitutes escape from the 'wheel of life and death'. As this was presented in the EBT's, beings were doomed to continuously suffer and die until such time as they escaped from the wheel of suffering, which was an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and the chances for which exceedingly rare. — Wayfarer

It may be exceedingly rare, but it seems to me that to "escape" from the cycle of birth & death is to escape from reincarnation.

Religious studies scholars will note that the idea of 'the uncreated' or 'unborn' is also found in Patristic theology, whereby in the final stages of theosis, the disciple is said to reach union with 'the uncreated light of God'. — Wayfarer

Well we don't need the idea of the Taboric Light to have something "unborn" and "uncreated" for God is in any kind of Christian theology unborn and uncreated.

You will find similar polemics in diverse religions, denouncing 'new age' religions and promising to represent the 'original and pure faith', straying from which will inevitably result in hell. Doubtlessly a Buddhist equivalent could also be cited. — Wayfarer

Well I think such denunciations are good, because the religions do, in the end analysis, make exclusivist claims to the truth. This doesn't mean they don't each contain some truth, but it does mean that only one has access to the fullness of Truth.

I think New Age is a very unfortunate phenomenon. Spirituality was never meant to be an "individualistic" affair.

To my knowledge the skandhas are supposed to account for a person's material and mental existence — Agustino

They're 'anatta' which means 'not self'.

Buddhism doesn't accept reincarnation, strictly speaking, in the sense of there being a person or soul which transmigrates. Quite why is a deep question. But your characterization is basically correct, otherwise.

only one has access to the fullness of Truth. — Agustino

Well, there's your authoritarian tendency again. Besides, history is replete with examples of unholy slaughters over just what Christ stands for. Look at the wars of religion. You would think if the revealed truth of Christ was obvious, how could that have happened?

Spirituality was never meant to be an "individualistic" affair. — Agustino

How could it be otherwise in a pluralistic world? Of course there is new age rubbish, but it's also a fact that human culture and consciousness really has crossed a threshold into a completely new kind of culture - a new age, in fact.