[Ian]
Yes, conventionally, but equally as "illusory" as the objects we call
rocks, birds and gravity.
[Arlo]
Of course. Equally as "real", equally as "illusory" (to use S/O
terms). The stability and continuity we call "self" is a reflection
of value, that is the "self" is as much a pattern of value as a
"rock" or a "bird" or "gravity".
[Ian]
Of course, as I said we all do it. The point is to do it in the
knowledge that you are doing it, and not attach attributes to the
object that are more to do with interactions and experiences
involving the dynamic collection of patterns rather than the object.
(Especially if the object is complex higher order collection of
social and intellectual patterns.)
[Arlo]
My point was that its not arbitrary or meaningless that we do it.
"We" do it because it has "value". Which is a tautology, to be sure.
"We" are "value" may be more precise. So when we think about the
"self", from a MOQ-view, we must ask about the "value" that is this
pattern. What is the value that evidences this continuity,
perseverance and pragmatic usefulness?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
