That's dehumanization, which is an effect of moralistic judgement. I completely disagree with you since static images of ideological boundary do not define individuals, only mask them.
That's not moralism. I don't understand how you can characterize an ontological claim as a moral claim. There's no connection.
-
-
Actually there is, because the self concept isn’t really coherent, it’s an aesthetic and stylistic imposition masquerading as an ontological claim.
-
"Self concept"? The concept of the self is not the self. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Ontologically, I consider information as prior. From your arguments, I surmise that you're ontologically a materialist.
-
At the level of a realist monism, the difference between information & materialism is basically moot—which is why there are scientific materialists who subscribe to informational physics’. That said, that has very little do with my view on the self. ^__^
-
Informational physics? You mean digital physics? Digital ontology and informational ontology define information differently, if I'm not mistaken. Matter and mind are products of information according to informational ontology.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.