|
ex the-brights.net forum, Ron Webb @ Nov 25 2007, 12:57
Maybe I'm reading more into it than you intended, but I think your definition also hints at the possibility of "ego", wherein the entity recognizes that certain internal states are more desirable than others and therefore purposefully seeks to receive positive stimuli (which will produce those internal states) and avoid negative ones.
As said in my first post on thread, I'm not a big believer in "Ego". I think as we perceive it it is mostly chimera. As the primary example, "I" claim to understand the words you've written, and to the extent this reply makes any sense I (no quotes) do. But what I actually perceive are patterns of light dark and color on an LCD screen. "I" have no idea (other than in theory, not yet realized in practice) how I manage to parse those sensoria into semantically correct and manipulable symbology, but my brain clearly does it. Ergo I am considerably more than "I" - massively so. "I" am little more than a sketch or shadow, as transient and shallow as the image on a TV screen which I (no quotes) move around when I need to envision (predict) my interactions with the outside world.
(Of course "Ego" or "I" is semantically referable as a symbol and has existence as such).
A great deal of the noise on this thread comes from the confusion of the symbol "I" with the semantic reference of I. Of course I (nether of us LOL.gif ) cannot speak for others but I am hugely aware of how capable of self deception our brains are - we're on an atheist (pax all those less abrupt) forum in a world of pixie proselytes, no? This is more subtle.
-- TWZ
|