virus: Existence and Ego (now Self vs. "self")

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:58:52 -0500

B:>>Or, is the
>>socially constructed self the only true being the one which happens at the
>>expense of the Self which is "director"( not "actor")?

R:>And if I was lost before, now I'm in the void...everything we were
building was
>an illusion, the apparent shell is the real substance and the principle
>"Self" is
>sacrificed? Are you evoking Nietzsche's "dead God" or Skinner's "Unknowable


Here I am simplifying Self and self to the concept of Self as "director" or
"actor"--or implying that the socially constructed self is merely actor.
But, the statement is deliberately opposed to "everything we were building"
as it is implies that this form of the equation (...the socially
constructed self [is] the only true being) would, in fact, be an
"illusion"--so you are not "in the void", you must give up the "self as
actor" idea and either return to the previous statement (that one or the
other is sacrificed--though we cannot determine which it is) or accept that
Self-as-director is , in fact, the prime example and that the social
construct of self as actor is sacrificed.

I have proposed that Self is "I think", and not "I am". Does this evoke
Nietzche or Skinner? I am guessing neither--I am assuming the proper
invocation would be an "alive God"...a refutation of Nietzche and/or a
"knowable mind", a refutation of Skinner. Which would you use to refute the
idea presented?


Rabble Sonnet Retort
"This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of

Arthur Dent