[MD] Issues with Self

[Ian Glendinning]

Yep, agreed. As I would expect Arlo :-)
Ian


On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> 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
>