 |
 |
Hhmmm...the brandy must be wearing off... > > In order for the 'I' to acknowledge that there IS an 'external > reality' the 'I' must first be aware of its own 'Internal > Reality' as being distinct to that which impinges upon it. Thus > for the 'I' to ask whether it is cold or whether it is 'I' means > that 'I' is aware that its interaction with the 'external' is a > subjective experience. Therefore the question becomes > meaningless as both elements are contained within each other. Isn't this, "I think, therefore, I am"? If so, then this Cartesian position only reveals the existence of an internal 'I', it can not logically carry you on to an assumption that other things exists. Is there a proof for an external existence? If not, then Object Theory and Good Breast/Bad Breast are based on a false premise. Our differentiation between the internal and external rests entirely on an internal process. So where's the data coming from? > > > As 'I' and 'external reality' are contained within each other > they all interact with each other; that is, 'I' interacts with > 'I' AND 'external reality', and 'external reality' interacts > with 'external reality' AND 'I'. According to the Bertrand Russell's' Theory of Classes, 'I' is a category contained with 'total reality'. 'external reality' may or may not also be a category within 'total reality'. However, 'I' and 'external reality' (NOT-I) cannot be contained within each other. > > > Since the interface can only be 'I' or 'Not-I' what exists > > which participates in both realms? > > Sorry you have forgotten about boolean algebra here. There can > also be a state of 'not-not-I', which is different to 'I': > 'I' is 'I', 'Not-I' is something other than 'I', 'Not-Not-I is > something other than 'I' AND 'Not-I'. It is possible that it is > this state that can interact between the other two states -- you > have, I assume, wisely decided to neglect the 'intra-actions' > between these states? Very wisely, I think. However, using Russell's method: I cannot be a category within NOT-NOT-I and neither can NOT-I. So NOT-NOT-I represents something external to both I (the self) and the (perhaps erroneously perceived) NOT-I (external reality). However the totality of existence will be I-AND-NOT-I. I can't think what NOT-NOT-I could be...God? Quantum Foam? Socialist policies from New Labour? > > While 'Ian' might not be 'suffering' from MPD, 'I' certainly > might as 'I' would have difficulty in being aware as to which > 'I' was authentic and which was inauthentic. Depending upon who > these I's were, Ian might even enjoy it rather than find it > 'suffering'. > Well, I guess it is good to have company. But only Ian/Iain can have MPD, since only Ian/Iain can contain more than one I. Only I=I is true, I>I is only true in a reiterative process, not in a single state. > > Can something that is not aware of 'I' be aware? This is the > tenet of reductionsit psychology isn't it? That 'lower order of > species' are not aware of an 'I'; therefore: are they 'aware'? EQUAL RIGHTS FOR NON-SENTIENT SAPIENS! Self-awareness as an unique quality of humans is not proven and is a specious (and speciesiest) argument. Of course we could all go the route of Skinner - none of us are self-aware, we are all little black boxes. > > In which case, this answer is probably also a part of your > fevered 'I' and doesn't actually exist. > Who are you? Prove you exist at once! > > I think we need to know! I demand a government enquiry! > Now you REALLY are imagining things! > Government enquiries never look at the really important things: If everything exists in a state of probability then why do Council Tax demands always arrive on time? Is there life before death? Why Jeffrey Archer? Can we stop this now? It is making my head ache? Fun though;) Ian...a slowly emerging sapient.