Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Friam-Digest-Vol-61-Issue-16-tp530192p531637.html
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, either the self is material,
>
> Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a
> container.
Yes, by "inner self", I was talking about Mikhail's latter "me".
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> [second me] is the product of thinking of the first one (me as I
> think about me)
So, I do not intend "inner" to mean "inside a container". I mean
"inner" in the sense of the mental constructs we build when thinking
about our selves. A model of our selves as viewed from within.
Both "me"s are part of the self, which is exactly the point I was trying
to argue with Mikhail, neither the physical self nor this endo-self are
less real than the other.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org