[MD] Issues with Self

[Arlo Bensinger]

[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?