Marie
At 04:13 AM 12/24/97 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Wade T.Smith wrote:
>
>> > However, to truly accept that one must give up the idea of *I*. I
>> >contend that no one here, other than myself, seems ready to relinquish
>that
>> >most fundamental faith...
>>
>> And I contend you are the only one seemingly unable to relinquish it. Why
>
>> do you think I am unable to dismiss 'I'? I have already relinquished all
>> faith. And it was remarkably easy.
>
>All this talk of The I harkens me back to a conversation I had with friends
>the other day. We were musing on the fact that the human face has more
>independently movable muscles on it than that of any other animal and
>wondering out loud if a thorough understanding of facial expressions might
>yeild, at some point, to sort of language. One rich in sublties, similar
>to the so called "ESP" that a couple that has been together for years is
>said to possess. Where a raise of an eyebrow or gesture can convey more
>information that a hundred words.
>
>It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine what a world that
>employed such a "language" would be like. Every time your gaze fell on
>anothers face you would "hear" them. When your eyes happened to meet
>anothers you could not help but engage them in conversation, instinctually.
> The internal dialogue might, in such and instance, be suplanted by an
>external and constant dialogue in which the concept of the self would, of
>necessity, expand to include everyone else as well. This change in the
>concept of The I (quite akin to the Rastafarrian personal pronoun "I and I"
>meaning "My self and the self of which we are all part") would bring with
>it a profound effect on human cultures, to say the least.
>
>I wonder if that might be similar to what it would be like to be an ant (or
>a african hairless mole rat, for that matter).
>
>-Prof. Tim
>
>
>
>
Marie
Marie L. Foster
<http://www.geocities.com/~mfos/>