>I disagree in that I think you are mistaking the word for the thing it
>refers to. The term "I" may create or affect our conception of what the
>"self" is, but it doesn't affect objective reality - if we were all
>illiterate apes incapable of abstract thought (of this magnitude) we would
>still be individual apes. We would perhaps lack a sense of self, or
>self-consciousness, but this would be a manifestation of our own
>inadequate powers of perception, not an indication that objective reality
>is fundamentally different.
You think we could be conscious without being conscious of the fact? That
doesn't make any sense to me. Or maybe you aren't talking about consciousness
at all.
> Language or the use of it may have
>ramifications in the objective world (the making of the hydrogen bomb, or
>the writings of Henry Miller) but this is I think on a different level
>than we started out talking about - the simplicity of "I."
If "I" implies consciousness it isn't simple at all.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/