Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (78607)	4/21/2000 9:54:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

our "highest selves"??? What does THAT mean. You are fracturing apart the total human personality- splitting one part off, and giving an unsubstantiated value judgment that this part is somehow "higher" than the other parts. If you were being chased by a pack of wild dogs your most "valuable" part of yourself would be your more primitive urge to protect yourself (just one example). I don't want to split myself apart and call one part "higher" than another. My hands are very useful- they let me type on this computer, but I wouldn't call them "higher" than my feet (except perhaps spatially). Here is just ONE instance of a sweeping value judgment backed up with not a shred of proof- for you really can't supply proof as such for value judgment- it IS a value judgment. I used to think that reason was the best part of my being- but now, I realize, that without all of me, I wouldn't be me. All parts are highest, imo. We are a totality. I'm talking here about the personality, about the internal person- I'm not talking about those silly discussions people have about which finger they'd cut off for a million dollars. I'm not even sure what you mean by highest self. Do you mean the part of our self that is capable of contemplating philosophy and religion? The self that is capable of contemplating itself? Do you mean, could you mean, the self that is most highly evolved?

To: Neocon who wrote (78607)	4/22/2000 12:28:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The link between aspiration and survival seems fairly self-evident to me, but it is good to be reassured by The Authority that I have done no harm. Religion and philosophy, which are more directly relevant to morality, do in fact set forth ideas about our highest selves.... First, it has yet to be demonstrated that religion and philosophy are more directly relevant to morality than practical experience. Second, I don't think we've even started to come to a consensus of what our "highest selves" are. Personally, I would say that the part of me which comforts my daughter when she is afraid, or plays goofy games in the pool with my son, is higher and more "human" than the part of me which engages in moral discourse. I suppose there are other interpretations, but there is certainly no self-evident definition of what is "high".