Add new comment

ooh, you're getting right to the center of it. does a relationship, an interaction between different localities, require a binary division? of course we can see that some division between things exists. we can discern differences in objects, the objects are clearly separated from each other in some way. but does that make a binary division between self and other?

in my experience it doesn't. i don't remember being a baby, so i base my knowledge of the world on my present experience. i'll acknowledge that i do find the self/other division meaningful. but i experience as the beginning of a crack, which is immediately continued. if i look at the division between "self" and "other", i can immediately follow it to a division between what is "self" and "self". if i call one part "unconscious self" and the other part "conscious self" or some equally meaningless labels, i notice that these parts are also divided. i can follow the cracks as far down as i like; as far as i can tell there's no reason to assign greater meaning to the self/other division than the uncountable divisions within "self" and within "other". sure, if you want to, you can. but how is that any more true than assigning meaning to every division, or exactly five divisions, or no divisions?

personally i like to work at an experience that moves through these divisions (or transformations) without dwelling on them. i suspect they're only made meaningful through domestication. why does it make more sense to split the world into two, than to look at proximity and distance from a particular locality? the dualist schema only makes sense with an essential self. if there's a gradient where the experience of "self" gradually becomes an perception of "other", what benefit does it offer to draw a binary line between the two?

i do in fact experience a gradient of that sort, and i have no basis for knowing if that's something unique to me. but i doubt it, i think it's a matter of expectations and attention.