Not-A-Self Not-Nothing

[Guest guest]

Part I - The " Who am I? " inquiry

 

The " who am I? " question (or similar such " inquiries " ) is a reducto

ad absurdum process[1]. The purpose of the ad absurdum process is

to expose a " rogue search process " . " Who am I? " is reducto ad

absurdum because there is nothing that the question refers to. When

the question is " wrestled to the ground " (the inquiry) then it is

" seen " that there is nothing that is referred to.

 

The " rogue search process " is a relentless inquisitor into things,

always wondering what things are about, what this is, what that is,

etc. etc. An illustration of this process at work is the infant or

toddler. It is basically an exploratory process seeking to

understand " the nature of things " . It is a " rogue " search process

in that it is essentially unbridled. But eventually its usefulness

comes to an end. At such time the appropriateness of the " I am "

inquiry comes into play, for the time comes when it is no longer

useful to continue the relentless discovery process but rather to

simply allow, to " let be " .

 

When the " Who am I? " question is carried to its natural conclusion

such that the inherent absurdity of the question is finally " seen "

then a fundamental premise of the " rogue search process " is

undercut, namely the premise that there is " someone " that is

" wondering what things are about " . When that premise is blown, then

the rogue search process comes to an " ab end " (halts).

 

Part II - The Human Information Processing System

 

There is no " who " that the question " who am I? " refers to[2]. But

what-we-are is a much more complex question. What-we-are is not

simply nothing. For example, it is clear that we are in ways much

like an " information processing system " . Or perhaps more

accurately, the operation of an information processing system is at

work in the manifestation of " what we appear to be " . Hence I will

say that an information processing system is (or is a good metaphor

for) a *component of* what-we-are.

 

A key characteristic of said information processing system (IPS)

is that it is " massively parallel " . This is well know from studies

of human behavior and the human brain. What this means is that the

IPS cannot be characterized by any single process. There are many,

many processes operating simultaneously. These myriad processes

can be thought of as " layers " the cumulative effect of which

produces the " manifestation activity " of the IPS as a whole.

 

An illustration about layers...

 

Photoshop is a computer graphics program. Photoshop allows the

creation, development, modification of images in " layers " . There

can be many many layers that successively build up an image. The

layers can be partial (pertain to just a portion of the image), or

translucent (they modify the underlying image, acting like a filter

on a camera lense), and/or semi-transparent (they are not 100%

opaque). By such a layering process a complex image can be built up

gradually and with exquisite control (I have used between 50 and

100 layers on some of the images I have created).

 

The Photoshop example illustrates the notion of " layers " being used

to create a complex cumulative result. The human information

processing system can be thought of as creating the appearance of

manifestation via complex layering as well, but rather than

composing static sub-images, the human IPS is dynamic and composes

multiple parallel dynamic *processes*. This is the very basis of

the Buddhist notion of " impermanence " -- because the processes are

myriad, with complex dynamic overlaying, what-is-going-on can never

be pinned down. What-is-going-on is always moving and is inherently

fleeting in nature.

 

But what-we-are cannot be boiled down to an information processing

system. There is more. There is heart and there is spirit. Heart

and spirit are even more subtle, elusive than the operation of the

IPS. Discussion of these topics is left for a later time. For now

it is enough to note that the human information processing system

is not *complete* in accounting for what-we-are.

 

 

Notes:

1. reductio ad absurdum - (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by

showing that the consequences of the proposition are absurd; or a proff

of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction.

 

2. The notions " who " and " self " are equivalent in this context. That there

is no " who " that the question " Who am I? " refers to is equivalent to

saying there is no " self " referred to.

 

 

-Bill Rishel

9-21-2004