Glen, from my 4th part, where I was talking about Feynman's saying and a difference between *our makes* and *creations of our Geniuses*, I thought that it was clear that two "me" are actually: me and my invisible Genius (or esoterically - ye, I know that you hate such stuff :-) But how about "The Matrix"? - speaking "Higher Self"). Sorry, it was some fuzzy-ness in my definitions but I think that it is an essential stuff in moving toward a clarification... --Mikhail
----- Original Message ----- From: glen e. p. ropella To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 16 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
============================================================ 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
