on the second diagram --(a) says -- ??? -- that these narratives extend from a core of the true self but are not the self. Whereas...(b) says that the self is all of these narratives, or at least includes them -- ???? am I understanding this at all?What's the source, Steve?thanks - B
Let the plagiarism begin:I am stealing from Jacques de Beaufort, who I can only assume stole the graph from someone else. I started to Google some of the language from the image and quickly realized that it would be much easier to ask Jacques.Stealing from many is "research".I wonder if the more important thing is, do we (Steve and Bill) understand these diagrams in the same way.I see the "Self" as existing as a graph (which is a fog) betwixt these extremes. But. . . sometimes you got to define your extremes... in order to explain a fog.
I'm pretty lazy about footnoting sources but those came fromhere andhereI also liked this,this,this, andthisI think that the graph of self is a way of looking at being as a decentered holistic experience rather than as ego based with a core. One is Eastern, the other Western. Personally my point was to demonstrate that all these nets, graphs, and maps are somewhat humorous and futile methods for reigning in experience which is esentially without intrinsic order. Grass isn't really green unless we make it so by naming it such. Similarly all structure applied to experience is the product of it's maker more than a description of that which it aims to describes.
I think that first link was fuzzed, try this cut and paste:http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/Psych-231/week6.html
there's some amazing shit on that kybele.psych linkypu have to press the yellow forward arrow down by the little pictograph of a house
whoa whoa whoafuggin whoathese are all precious linksMy bookmarks are now stacked to topplingJacques answered Bill Gusky's question and sent me down several Rabbit holes.I thank them both
Post a Comment