Yep, agreed. As I would expect Arlo :-) Ian
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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 > 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
