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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (97892)	1/16/2013 11:03:22 AM
From: Joseph Silent	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 218531

What I was alluding to is not easy to rationalize, and even harder to accept, given how one is conditioned from birth, particularly in a society that emphasizes the individual. You are correct in saying that "ideas live on" in our conventional understanding. My target, however, was not really the idea, but the word "your". 1. When an idea appears in "your" head/mind/being (where really?) what makes it "yours" ? Observe how this notion of "I did this", "me", "mine", "it belongs to me" shows up. Watch how a child learns from an adult how to grab his/her toy car or doll and not let anyone else have it. 2. That such a child can turn into a Mother Teresa (that is a public example; think of private examples that few or no one knows about because that is the humble, not-credit-seeking nature of what I describe) should lead you to question the meanings of "you" and "your". The above example was a long time frame. The process operates continuously. My simple point to the muddled quoz :) was that an entity in flux has a questionable identity. Once the identity is in question whose idea would an idea be? Whose reality can it be to turn upside down?