Diana McPartlin (email@example.com)
Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:19:34 +0100
So the self vs not-self split is the dualism from which all other
dualism springs - the mother of all dualism!
The subject-object metaphysics in its strictest sense refers to the self
not-self split. But P seems happy to also use the term more broadly to
include other dualisms and concepts that arise from this split. I think
it's quite okay to use the term broadly as long as we understand what
the essence of it is.
How about: If I'm not myself who the hell am I?
Can't cover everything in your post but you mentioned this before
> My thought on the matter is that all of the elements as well as all of
> the life forms are self contained entities that require a certain level
> of self protection to remain recognizable entities.
That's how it appears to us stuck in the SOM, but we have to consider
how it appears to non-intellectual beings. A tree doesn't see itself as
different from the soil or the rain. A bird doesn't know it's a bird.
You might speculate that some of the higher animals have glimmers of
intellect but, for the most part, their existences move between dynamic
and static. Animals protect themselves through pure instinct, they have
absolutely no choice about it.
-- post message - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST