Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 0:50:07
In reply to Re: Is there another part to that? » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 0:28:54
Ah, when you move from logic to metaphysics, I think my brain reaches its limits. :)
I think for my own purposes I'll stick with the dummies guide to the self. A self is the area inside the boundary where I end and not-I begins. Soooo, let's see. Some of the boundary tension is provided by not-I's, and the rest is provided by myself deciding what is I and what isn't.
But that doesn't account for the disavowal of what is actually part of me but that I don't wish to claim. That's where I always get stuck.
In my very humble opinion, because this is a difficult thing to grasp, role playing ought to be thrown out as a genuine part of the definition of a self. But disavowal is an almost insurmountable hurdle to overcome. Because how can you ever really know for sure? No matter what? So alters *could* be mutually disavowed fragments of the self. How could you ever prove they weren't?
(I'm having a bit of fun applying my idea of the self to narcissism though.)
poster:Dinah
thread:476326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/476556.html