[MD] subject / object logic

[Platt Holden]

Arlo writes:
 
> Although somewhat old (by today's standards), and one I think I've 
> referred to in the past, a good article entitled "Who am We?" that 
> appeared in Wired Magazine can be read at: 
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html
> 
> Tangentally related, perhaps, it draws from the view of the "self" as 
> a fluid, negotiated, social construct that exists only in the space 
> between two (or more) people, and is structured and conditioned by 
> cultural conceptualizations of the "self'. Or, perhaps better stated, 
> the trajectory from the selfish ego-boundrilessness to selfless 
> ego-boundrilessness is one traversed through social channels. And the 
> end result of this journey is forever shaped by the linguistic, 
> cultural, social and historical structures of that social world.

What Arlo fails to say is that the author makes a distinction between real 
and imaginary selves, and states a warning: "Multiple viewpoints call forth 
a new moral discourse. The culture of simulation may help us achieve a 
vision of a multiple but integrated identity whose flexibility, resilience, 
and capacity for joy comes from having access to our many selves. But if we 
have lost reality in the process, we shall have struck a poor bargain."

> Despite Platt's ridiculous attempt to make it an Evil Mao versus Holy 
> Bush argument, this strong attachment to the self (the "small self" 
> of Buddhism) is something not nearly so pronounced in many other 
> world cultures. At that point its important to back up and recognize 
> that our concept of "self" has excellent historical pragmatic 
> ramifications, but over-attachment is as dangerous and under-attachment.

Dangerous? How so?. If there are no selves, who can pose a threat?  

> I am certainly no expert on Buddhism, but I recommend looking in the 
> Buddhist notion of "anatta".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

This reference contains the following caveat: "What is normally thought of 
as the "self" is in fact an agglomeration of constantly changing physical 
and mental constituents ("skandhas"). This concept has, from early times, 
been controversial amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike and remains so 
to this day." 

Controversial indeed. From an essay by Hane Htut Maung entitled "Buddhism 
and Self:" 

"Some have also claimed that the concept of the self is an illusion, but I 
argue that this, too, is fallacious. Again, one may ask: what experiences 
the illusion?"

http://www.buddhanet.net/buddhism-self.htm

Seems I am not alone in questioning the illusory self. Some far smarter
than me also judge this truth to be of low quality.  

Platt