[DM] On an island alone I doubt a human being would ever come to see themselves as an individual. Surely it is when the family and community holds us to account that we realise we are individuals.
[Arlo] Of course, and this why the "self" is the dialogic-fusion of the bodily-kinesthetic "proprietary" awareness (BKPA) of the individual and the "collective consciousness of all mankind" (CCACM). My point was that Ham's idea of the "self" being the same thing as one's "proprietary awareness" would only be true for an individual left at birth on a deserted island. Although they would lack a concept of "self" as we know it (since our "selves" are fusions of BKPA and CCACM), there "awareness" would be strictly proprietary. Better said, perhaps, Ham conflates the "self" with BKPA, which is misguided and ignores the inescapable role of the collective (mythos) in the formation of the "self"... while Micah can't stop 69ing Rand long enough to come up for air and see that the whole "Epic Battle" is simply strawman rhetoric. [DM] I remember my nephew insisting for a couple of years that he was a nameless 'nothing' whenever we referred to him by name. Babies are not aware of being individuals, this is something they achieve. Can an animal ever be a true individual? [Arlo] Not in the sense of this discussion, no, since "self" is a dialogic construct dependent on intersocial cultural assimilation. Like Pirsig restates Descartes, it is not enough to "think" to make "I am", one must preface this event with "so and so culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am". 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
