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
