Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fel The Interesting Similarity Between The Philosophies of Bishop Berkeley and FMW
mt
Just to say I’ve been enjoying the latest emails from Jack, Don, Ron, and William, perhaps being presently an INTP (but years ago, also tested as an INTJ). Also this might explain to some extent why I coined the word Preception in the same Experiential sense that Franklin coined the world Introception.
My own sense of the problem with the use of “Self”, and much of the subject-object dilemmas are a matter of a lack of clear definition as to levels of Experiencial Preception or Introception) reduced into conceptual frameworks.
Williams quoted Raman Maharshi, “At one time it will become necessary [for us] to forget all that [we] have learnt.” This would appear to come from a specific Realized sense of before and after, and represent the difference between knowing and Knowing. Also, in this framework beyond the subject-object issue but integral and related to it, is the difference between levels of Knowing as filtered through (something called the self, and perhaps also Self – a level of Awareness). William’s (from ending of recent e-mail: “P.S. The Self of FMW would be the Superconscious Ego or the most refined I-Thought. Still a subject with a most refined object. But subject-object conscousness is illusion. Always.”
Again, the map is not the Territory, always, no matter how refined. But if we remain conscious of this fact, there may be no problem in using “Self” to point to Something as a useful way to communicate about a Territory, even though many may reject the thought or even confuse it with something else, some will recognize to What is pointed from their own Experiential sense of Knowing. I and some others also capitalize some words in an attempt to make this distinction between knowing and Knowing. In The Spirit of The Upanishads, copyright 1907 by The Yogi Publication Society, Chicago, Ill., the use of the word “Self” (capitalized as such in the book), appears to be used in the general sense of a pointing to That Realized beyond the subject-object conceptual construct.
“He, who imagines a limit in the limitless, transcendent Self, has, of himself, put his self in bondage.” Yogavasishtha.
[This use of “Self” might appear to point to Something Experienced-experienced which seems like, to the self involved, an unlimited self, which, in a language projected, moves from a self- reference to a Self reference upon Seeing a higher order of Awareness (as though outside the self). Of course It is not that and is that or That at the same time (Ocean and the wave are One) Needless to say, all selves (mental constructs) are indeed in bondage, often seeking a higher or more subtle form of escape-bondage called an objectified Self or some such something beyond a function of self-projection, often religious or esoteric in some way. These very subtle inner aspects of mind are projections and spiritual entertainments, even as a step up (in Awareness) both from the grosser lower order subject-object mind, or from a higher order or level of Awareness as a human potential being unpacked at a level of Homo sapiens development– mt].
“Neither speech nor mind, nay not even the eye, can realize It; how can It be realized in any category other than Being. It should be realized as pure Being, through proper analysis of both its conditioned and unconditioned forms. On him breaks the light of the Essence, beyond Being as well as non-Being, who thus realizes It.” Kathapanishad.
[This “level” of Awareness may be what FMW means by “High Indifference” as a kind of Essence of a Root Consciousness, original and primary (not that of content or state, nor of a Self or Atman), and suggests nothing can be “predicated in the private sense save “abstract Being.“ But what is “abstract Being” if not a conceptual formulation, a projection from the logic of abstract THOUGHT? – mt]
I think those who Know (Experientially through a no-self-recorder) have a natural tendency to want to communicate the “peace that passes all understanding,” in different ways and degrees, however they may stumble around the language or logic, knowing the limits of a language grounded in duality.
mt