terrestrial
New member
but could they be a false dichotomy?
TB: I'm playing devil's advocate here.
You didn't address my question directly. What's fundamental can still be false; it is not exempt from error. What is false is misleading. I'm not saying the dichotomy is not true in Western culture but that the distinction it makes is misleading. It's an incomplete and therefore limited perspective. However, the dichotomy as fundamental is an excellent idea. The next question would be, why is it fundamental? Then we'd get at motivations, what I think create the dichotomy.
I see your point that your neurons don't fire signals of pain when you hit someone with a hammer. A good observation but a classic explanation for our separateness based on singling out a behavior (I's hitting) that actually occurs in context; to hit is to be hit. Are we really acting independently or reacting to shared experience? The dichotomoy of "I" and "not I" implies mutual exclusivity, not taking into account this intersubjectivity.
TB: I'm playing devil's advocate here.
You didn't address my question directly. What's fundamental can still be false; it is not exempt from error. What is false is misleading. I'm not saying the dichotomy is not true in Western culture but that the distinction it makes is misleading. It's an incomplete and therefore limited perspective. However, the dichotomy as fundamental is an excellent idea. The next question would be, why is it fundamental? Then we'd get at motivations, what I think create the dichotomy.
I see your point that your neurons don't fire signals of pain when you hit someone with a hammer. A good observation but a classic explanation for our separateness based on singling out a behavior (I's hitting) that actually occurs in context; to hit is to be hit. Are we really acting independently or reacting to shared experience? The dichotomoy of "I" and "not I" implies mutual exclusivity, not taking into account this intersubjectivity.