Yes, you're right to classify the illusion of self along with Smith's
preemptive registration, more insidious, I think, than premature registration.
Identifying an object as atomic lies at the heart of a lot of our problems. We
could just as easily call it a discretization artifact. Here, the
Glen ☣ -
This is a very /sophist/icated argument YOU make. *I* can't tell,
however if *YOU* believe it, at least right this instant... perhaps
*YOU* believed it when you wrote it, but does that belief persist from
the former now to the current now?
Smart-asserry aside... Trying to take your
On 10/30/2017 08:34 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Do humans become more specialized with age? I propose that we go through
> cycles of specialization/generalization. Babies are optimized for two
> things, ingesting and metabolizing nourishment (eliminating waste is a
> sub-process this) and trig
You guys might be interested in the Psychoanalytic concept of object
constancy.
See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mahler
Many philosophical discussions are explained by psychoanalysts in terms of
object constancy. And the self is also an object Psychoanalytic speaking.
The old Chestnu
Right. Of course. But it's very telling that you put the word *purpose* last.
It is that purpose that sets the entire context, including the appropriateness
of any definition in the lexicon used while engaged in the project. You seem
to have ignored my point about use cases and how they set
I am (or thought I was) familiar with the idea. But it should be clear that
the wikipedia entry is GUILTY of the exact problem I'm trying to point out.
So, it's not only not helpful, but perpetuates the problem. Witness:
"Object constancy, similar to Jean Piaget's object permanence, describes
Lack of object constancy after childhood is definitely considered to be
symptomatic. If you don't believe something exists unless you are
experiencing it, including yourself, you will have a difficult time.
Here is a link:
http://borderlinepersonality.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/lack-of-object
Hmm. In my own words: perhaps you've known people who "fall to pieces"
when the object of their attachment isn't present. This often causes that
"object" to flee. Think of boy-girl relationships in adolescence which
sometimes are messed up because of the imprint of the past.
Frank
Frank Wimber
Awesome! I appreciate the link, though reading my DSM V entry on BPD muddies
my water. 8^) From your words and those of the link (Mahari), I can't help but
think about patterns of sensory stimuli, as opposed to "objects", per se.
While I completely reject the imputing of object-hood onto the
Another thing that helps me with Friam disagreements is to think in terms
of "both-and" rather than "either-or". In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevya says
to A, "you're right". B objects and Tevya says again, "You're right". C
says that they can't both be right and Tevya says, "You're also right".
Fra
Heh, as long as you identify the particulars of the use case, then "both-and"
is intuitive and correct. But when someone makes an ambiguous statement with
no particulars and makes no serious attempt to describe the context in which
their statement is supposed to be understood, then it's definit
11 matches
Mail list logo
