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.
We do what we do because of brain processes that we simplify and call "care." It's a convenient simplification that accounts for an incomprehensibly narrow range of what happens in the universe. Pigs care about eating garbage and rutting in the mud. So what?
-
-
This is a galaxy brain take. JFC. You cannot care about things you cannot care about. Trying to care about something you cannot care about is like pig trying to care about the battle of Tours. It's immaterial to the pig.
-
You said something like: "Care cares about separation of concerns." What I'm saying is, even if that's true (though I think my own "cares" provide a counterexample), something isn't desirable from the universe's point of view just because humans care about it.
-
e.g. very human can't help but care about their own animal pleasure. But anyone but a degenerate hedonist will admit that pleasure isn't the point of life. It may be necessary to fight against our own cares if we want to be anything more noble than a gluttonous sex pervert.
-
>It may be necessary to fight against our own cares Fighting against our "cares" is a form of Care you silly.
-
So what? I'm not denying its existence as an abstraction.
-
So then you accept it as a first axiom that enframes things we can talk about.
-
"Abstraction" and "first axiom" are incompatible
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.