Still, as these experiences are shaped by our memories, physical parts,
stored interpretation mechanisms, selectional intelligence that charts plans
for next experiences and can partly experience itself, etc., - wouldn't it be
natural to include some of those into the notion of Self as well? Otherwise,
we call the Process the Self, while the Substrate of this process - our
bodies,
knowledge, preferences are... what? Then we could also say that only
processes
are real in anything, and non-interacting things are just not there - then
we lose
the continuity of the entities and can't explain why they suddenly start
experiencing
this or that. So I'd say that Self is a package of both experiences and
abilities.
At this point in the evolutionary process, [some/most] experiences seem more
fluid than [some/most] abilities, so with the tradition of calling parts
with greater
continuity "objects", we can see why people objectify the package of abilities
into the notion of personality. Maybe, in another situation - with fluid
internals
and relatively fixed/simple environment (e.g., a TH hosted by the Amish),
these
notions would swap places...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Chislenko Home page: <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
Firefly Website recommendations: <http://my.yahoo.com> ---> "Firefly"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------