There are some interesting thoughts here, and I think I'm going to need to look into PCT. I particularly liked the part where you describe how it is conflict between drives that gives rise to awareness, which fits very well into the idea that all the aggregates are inherently unsatisfying (this would indicate they arise precisely because they are unsatisfying).
I think this piece needs more citations and direct quotes to bolster it. As someone who hasn't read about PCT, I found a lot of the assertions rather vague. Same goes for Madhyamaka, which is not the school/tradition that I practice within. As someone who is interested in both of these topics, this post, if spruced up with more citations, quotes, overviews of the systems, etc., could serve as a really solid launching pad for further investigation.
This is an ambitious piece that I think could be really fantastic, but I think it's too short. I put it into a word counter out of curiosity, and I see it's only 3,400 words. What I would want to see as a reader who is genuinely interested in this and wants to extract as much understanding as I can from it is would be a section that explains PCT using references and quotes, a section that explains Madhyamaka, again using references and quotes from Nagarjuna, etc., and then various sections that merge these thoughts. Without that, it came across as vague.
I appreciate the feedback, Otto. I’m still trying to gauge reader appetite, so we’ll consider this an hors d’oeuvre. It’s unclear to me at this point how much a reader is willing to consume in a single post. Although, I see how it would be beneficial to beef up this article as you suggested or follow-up with several other articles explaining the background material in more detail for the reader. More to follow!
Part of the reason I said that is because you referred to it as a "paper" in the introduction. So I responded as if it were appearing in an academic journal. But if it's designed for Substack as opposed to just be incidentally posted on Substack, my comments wouldn't apply so much.
For now, it was simply intended for Substack, but perhaps it could be developed into something more comprehensive in the future. I had considered adding more originally, but backed off for the reasons mentioned. I’m glad to know there’s interest, though.
As I argued elsewhere, I agree with the central premises (related to the systemic effect), but there is no consistent argument here, yet. There is potential, but a lot of work ahead.
Some suggestions. Any functional terms (“emptiness”, “inherent existence” vs “existence” etc) need to be either defined or abandoned. All subjective epithets need to go; stick to what can be clearly defined or is uncontroversial. If your argument is consistent then it can be proven, it should stand on its own feet, in which case the Buddhist views and PCT add nothing to it. If they had good arguments there would be nothing more to prove.
Thank you, Michael! Your feedback is well-taken and much appreciated. You’re right that the argument isn’t presented as a formal proof. It’s the beginning of a work in progress and an attempt to trace the implications of “no self” as a lived and observable phenomenon, drawing from traditions (like Buddhism and PCT) that have helped shape my thinking and align with my view of reality.
You’re also right to point out that terms like “emptiness” and “inherent existence” need clear definitions to avoid ambiguity. That said, these terms do have precise meanings within the traditions I’m drawing from. They are functional and contextual, not metaphysical in the classical sense. I’ll work to clarify them more explicitly in work to come.
The aim here is not to prove a thesis in isolation from these frameworks, but to show how insights from different disciplines converge on a consistent picture of self as emergent, interdependent, and empty of fixed essence. I appreciate your thoughts, as always! There’s indeed more work ahead.
This still seems to reduce everything to systems with points of potential divergence from what you say are not selves but possess essentially some level of intentionality as much as awareness and choosing otherwise or just deeper awareness is possible. Thus I wonder why you refuse the term self to these points of potential divergence. A self cannot be becoming or this point of awareness which comes into existence and continues to become until one can say I am? Or this self does not continue inspite of the transient nature of phenomena. This seems to take a view from nowhere in its metaphysical pronouncements rather than appreciating phenomenological insight. As such it indicts itself by claiming there is any point from which awareness can arise and that conclusions can be drawn about it through a naturalistic view from nowhere about these points of awareness.
Let me clarify because I’m not refusing the term self altogether. When I say “no self,” I’m not speaking from a detached, metaphysical “view from nowhere.” On the contrary, this view is deeply rooted in experiential reality: in what can be observed, felt, and examined within experience itself.
I don’t deny that you or I exist as real persons - phenomenologically and functionally, we clearly do. What is denied is that there is a metaphysically self-existing subject behind that functioning - a self that exists independently, inherently, or as a substance. That’s what “no self” means: not the absence of existence, agency, or personhood, but the emptiness of any fixed, independent essence behind them.
There are some interesting thoughts here, and I think I'm going to need to look into PCT. I particularly liked the part where you describe how it is conflict between drives that gives rise to awareness, which fits very well into the idea that all the aggregates are inherently unsatisfying (this would indicate they arise precisely because they are unsatisfying).
I think this piece needs more citations and direct quotes to bolster it. As someone who hasn't read about PCT, I found a lot of the assertions rather vague. Same goes for Madhyamaka, which is not the school/tradition that I practice within. As someone who is interested in both of these topics, this post, if spruced up with more citations, quotes, overviews of the systems, etc., could serve as a really solid launching pad for further investigation.
This is an ambitious piece that I think could be really fantastic, but I think it's too short. I put it into a word counter out of curiosity, and I see it's only 3,400 words. What I would want to see as a reader who is genuinely interested in this and wants to extract as much understanding as I can from it is would be a section that explains PCT using references and quotes, a section that explains Madhyamaka, again using references and quotes from Nagarjuna, etc., and then various sections that merge these thoughts. Without that, it came across as vague.
I appreciate the feedback, Otto. I’m still trying to gauge reader appetite, so we’ll consider this an hors d’oeuvre. It’s unclear to me at this point how much a reader is willing to consume in a single post. Although, I see how it would be beneficial to beef up this article as you suggested or follow-up with several other articles explaining the background material in more detail for the reader. More to follow!
Part of the reason I said that is because you referred to it as a "paper" in the introduction. So I responded as if it were appearing in an academic journal. But if it's designed for Substack as opposed to just be incidentally posted on Substack, my comments wouldn't apply so much.
For now, it was simply intended for Substack, but perhaps it could be developed into something more comprehensive in the future. I had considered adding more originally, but backed off for the reasons mentioned. I’m glad to know there’s interest, though.
As I argued elsewhere, I agree with the central premises (related to the systemic effect), but there is no consistent argument here, yet. There is potential, but a lot of work ahead.
Some suggestions. Any functional terms (“emptiness”, “inherent existence” vs “existence” etc) need to be either defined or abandoned. All subjective epithets need to go; stick to what can be clearly defined or is uncontroversial. If your argument is consistent then it can be proven, it should stand on its own feet, in which case the Buddhist views and PCT add nothing to it. If they had good arguments there would be nothing more to prove.
Good luck!
Thank you, Michael! Your feedback is well-taken and much appreciated. You’re right that the argument isn’t presented as a formal proof. It’s the beginning of a work in progress and an attempt to trace the implications of “no self” as a lived and observable phenomenon, drawing from traditions (like Buddhism and PCT) that have helped shape my thinking and align with my view of reality.
You’re also right to point out that terms like “emptiness” and “inherent existence” need clear definitions to avoid ambiguity. That said, these terms do have precise meanings within the traditions I’m drawing from. They are functional and contextual, not metaphysical in the classical sense. I’ll work to clarify them more explicitly in work to come.
The aim here is not to prove a thesis in isolation from these frameworks, but to show how insights from different disciplines converge on a consistent picture of self as emergent, interdependent, and empty of fixed essence. I appreciate your thoughts, as always! There’s indeed more work ahead.
This still seems to reduce everything to systems with points of potential divergence from what you say are not selves but possess essentially some level of intentionality as much as awareness and choosing otherwise or just deeper awareness is possible. Thus I wonder why you refuse the term self to these points of potential divergence. A self cannot be becoming or this point of awareness which comes into existence and continues to become until one can say I am? Or this self does not continue inspite of the transient nature of phenomena. This seems to take a view from nowhere in its metaphysical pronouncements rather than appreciating phenomenological insight. As such it indicts itself by claiming there is any point from which awareness can arise and that conclusions can be drawn about it through a naturalistic view from nowhere about these points of awareness.
Let me clarify because I’m not refusing the term self altogether. When I say “no self,” I’m not speaking from a detached, metaphysical “view from nowhere.” On the contrary, this view is deeply rooted in experiential reality: in what can be observed, felt, and examined within experience itself.
I don’t deny that you or I exist as real persons - phenomenologically and functionally, we clearly do. What is denied is that there is a metaphysically self-existing subject behind that functioning - a self that exists independently, inherently, or as a substance. That’s what “no self” means: not the absence of existence, agency, or personhood, but the emptiness of any fixed, independent essence behind them.