The ego is just a placeholder we use to describe the primary "machinic" processes that produce consciousness in the brain. What the "ego" constituted by these processes wants or “ cares" about is no more inherently significant than e.g. the arrangement of carbon atoms in a rock.
-
-
Replying to @biodysphoria
I made a huge mistake in the above tweet by using the word "ego" because I have very little Care about the specific Landian definition of that word -- I simply meant "the thing that Cares"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
It's the same thing. It's not about the word you use. There's no separable entity that cares. Care is produced by the machinic unconscious. It's not the property of an absolute individual actor.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
Denying the above claim involves the denial of materialism. The physical processes in your brain are more fundamentally real than the secondary processes they create. There is no "soul" that survives the dissolution of its physical basis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @biodysphoria
This is incorrect. A software engineer who writes COBOL or C++ or Haskell does not "deny" materialism by abstracting away from the low-level hardware on which his code runs.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
A good opportunity for clarification: C++ doesn't exist for its own sake. It exists to manipulate hardware. Unfortunately, this useful abstraction invites misunderstanding by implying that hardware works like a programming language.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Replace C++ with "the unitary 'I' " and hardware w/ "the brain"
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.