>I'm in a bad mood, so this might be rough, I apologize in advance.
>
>It's crazy i say to think of this in this manner.
>
>WE ARE ALL ALIKE in a jillion ways, but different in others.
snip
>
>Almost across the board we are different. Because we are different, and
>because we have free will, we cannot be automotons - they exist only in
>books and philosophy, not reality.
>
snip
>
>I try, as you have noticed, not to use absolutes. We all know that
>absolutes are a faulty way of thinking. Marie, instead of saying "the
>same" use the word "similar" and I'll bet most argument will fade.
>
Not rough at all. I have had similar thoughts. I know I range on the
issue of absolutes. I will have to reevaluate where I stand on that one at
this time. And I was not feeling that there was any argument over these
ideas, but that they had been dismissed by list members as unworthy of
consideration. Often trying to get ones ideas communicated is not the
easiest thing.
I really think you hit on something here when you said "we cannot be
automatons" in response to my thought that believing in our 'sameness' is
not a threat to autonomy. I had never juxtaposed these words in this way.
As I understand it an automaton is 'hard wired' to follow programming while
being autonomous means being self contained.... yet since they have the
same root... It looks like I need another visit to the library to sort
this out.
As always, you guys keep the old neurons firing.
Marie
Marie L. Foster
<http://www.geocities.com/~mfos/>