Every article or piece of writing can be criticized and dissected, but this is not my point here. Since you are obviously a very deep thinker, you inspire me to think more deeply through your writings. While there is much to your article, a couple of points jumped out at me...
You wrote: “The rain isn’t literally a technique for making the ground wet; the wetness, rather, is an undesigned effect of rainfall.” Is this a fact? I really do not know. But it does seem to me that all that exists has a will or an impulse within the singular movement of consciousness. So the question seems to be whether the planet, or weather, has intent, in this case the intent to cause rain that makes the ground wet. Can we ever know this? If so, how can we know it? And, can we say for certain that the planet is less capable or intentional as we humans to produce a desired effect? In consideration of this we may wonder if the only way to achieve a desired effect is by way of concepts that originate in the brain or mind of a human being or perhaps another mammal.
Second point of contemplation…
You wrote, “Thus, the personal self is a relatively immaterial, imaginary tool the brain uses to affect the outer world…The reasons we identify with this mere tool we use, rather than with the true user…”
This begs the question of whether the brain is the actual doer, using the self as a tool. I am not so sure of this. In your next phrase you write, “…we identify with this mere tool…” Who is this “we” or “I” that identifies as anything at all? It is the self that has fragmented itself into the tool and the user of the tool, when in fact, it is both.
To my experience, the self is immaterial, imaginary, and illusory, yet it refers to itself as “I,” or collectively as “we.” The self is created through psychological conditioning that leads to a fragmentation, a splitting off of consciousness into an eddy of focus. It is, therefore, an unclear mind that does not apperceive the wholeness of reality.
Are you suggesting that the brain is the real doer? It seems that this is what you are saying, but I do not want to jump to conclusions about your intention. I would contend instead that consciousness is the only doer, and the self, the body, the brain, and all of life, with beings and objects both sentient and insentient, are artifacts of consciousness. As consciousness, then, perhaps what occurs is not a coincidence, meaningless, undesigned, or accidental outcome. Instead it is owing to the total movement of life at play. Is there a purpose to it? Perhaps, or perhaps not. At some point, however, in my experience, it is possible to recognize or experience the impulse of all and any thing that exists. In a human being we may attribute intention to this impulse, but is it also possible that non human forms, as well as weather systems or objects can also have an intention or some analogy of intention?
