Yes I can even understand the claim that "experience is radically different than how we are able to describe" i.e non-intentional
Conversation
Replying to
I'd read it as "there is no inside view"? Which I can't say for sure but distinction between inside/outside view is useful.
1
1
Replying to
So for me to claim that is to willfully throw away a useful tool of understanding. But maybe better reasons follow.
1
1
Replying to
I see how it may be useful to critique any residue "ghostliness" or errors that arise from grammatical structure (the "cogito")
1
Replying to
And I have no problem with skepticism regarding identity and ego, or even subject... I guess we're just left with perception.
1
1
Replying to
I kind of want to see a philosopher deny the "I" with such consequence that they purge it from their language and thought.
2
1
Replying to
It's possible to write without the "I" but to do away with it in everyday interaction is another thing entirely.
1
Replying to
I know a meditation that at least disperses it for a while. But it doesn't last long. Maybe for lack of trying.
1
1
Replying to
Yes, I can only wish to rid of the "I" as thoroughly as Bakker says it is.
1
Replying to
twitter.com/allgebrah/stat
It works for me but I haven't done it in a while, or for more than a minute.
Quote Tweet
Meditation: Surround yourself with mirrors. Let your presence bleed into them entirely, remove the center. Shatter them into dust.