From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 18:07:50 MST
>
> Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> >
> > So I think there is still room for a sense of self in the face of an
> > extended multiverse. It just requires a relaxation / modification of
> > your self concept. Hey, it's arbitrary anyway :-)
> >
>
> In my opinion, the more you think about self, the more you
> realize there is
> no "self", independent from the rest of the universe, to
> which the question
> of free will can be applied. The question of free will is
> un-asked, and the
> answer is mu.
>
> As with all paradox, understanding is a matter of context level.
>
> - Zen Jef
I don't think that I agree with you. I do agree that there is no single
physical thing which is the self, but something is there; an epiphenomenon
most likely, but that can still be real. I think it's reasonable to be very
loose with a definition of self, as I think it is
personal/subjective/individual, a result of recursive mental processes. This
doesn't make it wrong.
I wonder that, given your opinion on the self (which is a position worthy of
respect, I believe), you sign your post with a name. What does it signify?
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 18:10:29 MST