Re: virus: "the self"
Mark Hornberger (markhornberger@nietzsche.net)
Tue, 29 Apr 1997 01:50:39 -0500
At 08:50 PM 4/28/97 EDT, you wrote:
>> >refers to. The term "I" may create or affect our conception of what the
>> >"self" is, but it doesn't affect objective reality - if we were all
>> >illiterate apes incapable of abstract thought (of this magnitude) we would
>> >still be individual apes. We would perhaps lack a sense of self, or
>> >self-consciousness, but this would be a manifestation of our own
>> >inadequate powers of perception, not an indication that objective reality
>> >is fundamentally different.
>>
>> You think we could be conscious without being conscious of the fact? That
>> doesn't make any sense to me. Or maybe you aren't talking about
consciousness
>> at all.
>>
>> >...
>>
>> If "I" implies consciousness it isn't simple at all.
>
>I think you've both hit on what I was driving toward: After you strip away
>all that other stuff ("my body", "my mind", "my thoughts", etc.), maybe all
>you're left with is what we call "consciousness", and that's what we're
>ultimately referring to when we say "I". To understand "I" (whether one
>calls it that or not), is to posess self-consciousness.
>
>Joel
>
Precisely. Thanks.
Mark