|
On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc.
Idiots like you can find a negative in any kinda of generous action. I'm sure Bill Gates just donates tons of money each year because it gives him a chubby.
|
On November 30 2008 05:11 Physician wrote:
and hence his claim that the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is understanding.
Which would mean that we are already doomed since most people do not understand anything at all. They always favour their time ego, which means that if you ask them if they want a thousand dollars now or two thousand dollars in a year most will want the thousand now even though technically they are still themselves in a year they are not seeing it like that.
As such since they have a hard time even being nice to themselves unless it directly gains something in a small time frame how can anyone argue that the main force behind selfishness comes from peoples understanding of each other?
On November 30 2008 05:13 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc. Idiots like you can find a negative in any kinda of generous action. I'm sure Bill Gates just donates tons of money each year because it gives him a chubby.
What else would he do with the money? Money have no defined happiness value which makes your point moot.
|
On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is.
like I do that on purpose, what the hell
if I meant empathy and I thought of the word empathy and I knew the word empathy then I would have used the word empathy.
in this case no, I did not mean empathy. is what I said the definition of empathy?
|
On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
And yeah travis jesus if you wanna convey a thought try to make it as clear as possible, stop with the enigmas already lol
it's not my fault if I believe things that aren't easy to describe
|
On November 30 2008 05:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is. like I do that on purpose, what the hell if I meant empathy and I thought of the word empathy and I knew the word empathy then I would have used the word empathy. in this case no, I did not mean empathy. is what I said the definition of empathy?
Definition of empathy:
"A sense of shared experience, including emotional and physical feelings, with someone or something other than oneself."
Yeah, what you said is pretty much equal to empathy.
|
On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc.
If you seriously think that every action is preceded by conscious deliberation, you're weird. When you see an old woman struggling to pick up groceries or something like that, you're not gonna stand there weighing the pros and cons to helping her. You just do it, and afterwards you feel good about yourself. You can indeed consider this as a reward that has arisen through evolution, but it's not something you consciously lust for.
Also, what kind of definition of 'selfish' is that lol, you can be selfish without hurting anyone else
|
On November 30 2008 05:20 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:18 travis wrote:On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is. like I do that on purpose, what the hell if I meant empathy and I thought of the word empathy and I knew the word empathy then I would have used the word empathy. in this case no, I did not mean empathy. is what I said the definition of empathy? Definition of empathy: "A sense of shared experience, including emotional and physical feelings, with someone or something other than oneself." Yeah, what you said is pretty much equal to empathy.
no, it absolutely isn't.
empathy is a subjective mode of experience.
what I was saying is an objective description of the way the universe works.
empathy is limited to what one can identify with. what I was talking about is much more encompassing.
anyone can empathize. what I was talking about takes a certain type of understanding.
physician understood what I meant.
|
After a page of arguing over what you meant to say, I think it's pretty clear that you worded it enigmatically.
Physician's explanation, for example, is a far clearer way of expressing the same thought.
|
On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc. If you seriously think that every action is preceded by conscious deliberation, you're weird. When you see an old woman struggling to pick up groceries or something like that, you're not gonna stand there weighing the pros and cons to helping her. You just do it, and afterwards you feel good about yourself. You can indeed consider this as a reward that has arisen through evolution, but it's not something you consciously lust for.
Not consciously, no, but really consciously you do not do much at all at all. Outside of science there is no real reasoning, since the weights of every option is purely based on your instincts you just ask your instincts what to do, not reasoning. Now in the situation with the lady you do not need to ask your instincts by modelling situations but instead you got the situation right in front of you which means that the instincts reacts instantly.
And instincts are built up based on partly genetics and partly on previous experience which includes the mental rewards/punishments you feel constantly through life.
On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:
Also, what kind of definition of 'selfish' is that lol, you can be selfish without hurting anyone else
I mean all kinds of hurting, such as hurting economically, emotionally, physically etc, not just pure physical pain.
And yes, since I argue that every act is selfish you can be selfish without doing such things, but overall that's how society views you which is all that have any meaning to discuss.
And we are not just discussing society's views on good/bad, since the OP talked about the rules for karma if you consider that you just do it for karma, then I say taht if you think in that way every action can be seen as selfish since none ever does anything without believing that they will get something for it.
On November 30 2008 05:31 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:20 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 05:18 travis wrote:On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote:On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is. like I do that on purpose, what the hell if I meant empathy and I thought of the word empathy and I knew the word empathy then I would have used the word empathy. in this case no, I did not mean empathy. is what I said the definition of empathy? Definition of empathy: "A sense of shared experience, including emotional and physical feelings, with someone or something other than oneself." Yeah, what you said is pretty much equal to empathy. no, it absolutely isn't. empathy is a subjective mode of experience. what I was saying is an objective description of the way the universe works. empathy is limited to what one can identify with. what I was talking about is much more encompassing. anyone can empathize. what I was talking about takes a certain type of understanding. physician understood what I meant.
And you believe that since people are unconsciously so understanding that they understand that in the long run everyone is happiest if everyone's action was to ensure the maximum good for the whole population instead of the self?
However since none on earth are selfless in that sense your point is moot. Unless you regard every individual as an equally viable candidate to receive your help then you are not going by that philosophy.
You could argue that the basis of all "selflessness" is due to "survival of the fittest" and that helping others helps in the long run part of your species to survive better and thus we develop it, but human reasoning alone do not get so deep so it can't be the basis of the goodness in society.
|
On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc. If you seriously think that every action is preceded by conscious deliberation, you're weird. When you see an old woman struggling to pick up groceries or something like that, you're not gonna stand there weighing the pros and cons to helping her. You just do it, and afterwards you feel good about yourself. You can indeed consider this as a reward that has arisen through evolution, but it's not something you consciously lust for. Not consciously, no, but really consciously you do not do much at all at all. Outside of science there is no real reasoning, since the weights of every option is purely based on your instincts you just ask your instincts what to do, not reasoning. Now in the situation with the lady you do not need to ask your instincts by modelling situations but instead you got the situation right in front of you. And instincts are built up based on partly genetics and partly on previous experience which includes the mental rewards/punishments you feel constantly through life. Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:
Also, what kind of definition of 'selfish' is that lol, you can be selfish without hurting anyone else I mean all kinds of hurting, such as hurting economically, emotionally, physically etc, not just pure physical pain. And yes, since I argue that every act is selfish you can be selfish without doing such things, but overall that's how society views you which is all that have any meaning to discuss.
There's no real reasoning outside of science? Let's take the laziness example. When I'm lying in my bed, and I'm too lazy to go to class, I'm gonna be weighing the pros and cons pretty thoroughly before deciding to get up or to stay in bed. I do think this is more than just 'instinct'.
And we are not just discussing society's views on good/bad, since the OP talked about the rules for karma if you consider that you just do it for karma, then I say taht if you think in that way every action can be seen as selfish since none ever does anything without believing that they will get something for it.
I would say that this is true most of the time, but there are exceptions. You can think of a situation in which someone does something completely selfless. You can't mix the evolutionary explanation, which has more to do with unconscious stuff, with the more logical explanation, which has to do with weighing things over.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
I just hope oneofthem doesn't find this thread and rips all of us to shreds lol..
|
On November 30 2008 05:47 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:On November 30 2008 05:04 Klockan3 wrote:On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote:
Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that.
Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc. If you seriously think that every action is preceded by conscious deliberation, you're weird. When you see an old woman struggling to pick up groceries or something like that, you're not gonna stand there weighing the pros and cons to helping her. You just do it, and afterwards you feel good about yourself. You can indeed consider this as a reward that has arisen through evolution, but it's not something you consciously lust for. Not consciously, no, but really consciously you do not do much at all at all. Outside of science there is no real reasoning, since the weights of every option is purely based on your instincts you just ask your instincts what to do, not reasoning. Now in the situation with the lady you do not need to ask your instincts by modelling situations but instead you got the situation right in front of you. And instincts are built up based on partly genetics and partly on previous experience which includes the mental rewards/punishments you feel constantly through life. On November 30 2008 05:26 ManBearPig wrote:
Also, what kind of definition of 'selfish' is that lol, you can be selfish without hurting anyone else I mean all kinds of hurting, such as hurting economically, emotionally, physically etc, not just pure physical pain. And yes, since I argue that every act is selfish you can be selfish without doing such things, but overall that's how society views you which is all that have any meaning to discuss. There's no real reasoning outside of science? Let's take the laziness example. When I'm lying in my bed, and I'm too lazy to go to class, I'm gonna be weighing the pros and cons pretty thoroughly before deciding to get up or to stay in bed. I do think this is more than just 'instinct'.
You are not reasoning though, you are modelling the scenarios you believe will play based on that decision and then based on the feelings you get from each situation you pick the one which gives you the most pleasant ones/least horrid ones.
On November 30 2008 05:47 ManBearPig wrote:Show nested quote +And we are not just discussing society's views on good/bad, since the OP talked about the rules for karma if you consider that you just do it for karma, then I say taht if you think in that way every action can be seen as selfish since none ever does anything without believing that they will get something for it. I would say that this is true most of the time, but there are exceptions. You can think of a situation in which someone does something completely selfless. You can't mix the evolutionary explanation, which has more to do with unconscious stuff, with the more logical explanation, which has to do with weighing things over.
"something completely selfless" Can you describe such a situation? Even if someone sacrifices his own life to save someone who is not related to him at all, it was becase his instincts told him that he would get rewarded afterwards. It do not matter if you as an outsider clearly can see that that would never happen and that there are no evolutionary reasons to why he would do it, he had emotional reasons to do it.
On November 30 2008 05:48 Physician wrote:
I just hope oneofthem doesn't find this thread and rips all to shreds lol..
I hope he does if he is any good, arguing without a challenge is no fun.
Edit: Although I am sure that he can cut my posts to shreds as they are laid out now, I know that I myself could easily do that if I had the opposite opinion. The thing is though that you get lazy when you post against normal people. Since I am not a master on the subject I have to derive every point I make instead of just taking pre made ones which makes my arguments very leaky unless I really focus.
|
On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:
And you believe that since people are unconsciously so understanding that they understand that in the long run everyone is happiest if everyone's action was to ensure the maximum good for the whole population instead of the self?
I don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything about what I think people believe or understand. What was happening before was speculation about the nature of selflessness, no?
And I never said anything about the whole population vs individual or whatever. That isn't what I was saying.
However since none on earth are selfless in that sense your point is moot. Unless you regard every individual as an equally viable candidate to receive your help then you are not going by that philosophy.
I am selfless in that sense, from time to time. So clearly you are wrong when you say "none are selfless in that sense".
|
klockan3 are you for real? LOL
|
On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:
And you believe that since people are unconsciously so understanding that they understand that in the long run everyone is happiest if everyone's action was to ensure the maximum good for the whole population instead of the self?
I don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything about what I think people believe or understand. What was happening before was speculation about the nature of selflessness, no? And I never said anything about the whole population vs individual or whatever. That isn't what I was saying.
But then explain to me, how this:
On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where".
do not show that:
A: You believe that understanding is the main drive force for good and higher morality.
B: The understanding in question is that since the person you are helping could just as well have been you. (Even though it is physically impossible if everyone have that thought it gets true)
Now from A+B you can easily get that since every person on earth could be you, the actions you do is based on how good/bad it is in total for all people and therefore the force of good would be that people understand that it would be the best action for humankind as a whole.
On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:
I am selfless in that sense, from time to time. So clearly you are wrong when you say "none are selfless in that sense".
You can't be selfless like that "from time to time" either you are like that all of the time or you are not like that at all. What you are referring to here is just empathy.
To make my point clear, look at it like this: As soon as you start to judge people you are not selfless in that sense. Therefore if you at a point feel that you are doing it like that and at another point you do not help someone it was just the circumstances that got you doing it and not the selflessness of yourself.
|
On November 30 2008 06:16 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:On November 30 2008 05:37 Klockan3 wrote:
And you believe that since people are unconsciously so understanding that they understand that in the long run everyone is happiest if everyone's action was to ensure the maximum good for the whole population instead of the self?
I don't know what you are talking about. I never said anything about what I think people believe or understand. What was happening before was speculation about the nature of selflessness, no? And I never said anything about the whole population vs individual or whatever. That isn't what I was saying. But then explain to me, how this: Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". do not show that: A: You believe that understanding is the main drive force for good and higher morality.
it does say that. where is the contradiction?
B: The understanding in question is that since the person you are helping could just as well have been you.
not quite, but close.
not "could just as well have been you"
rather "is you". well that isn't quite right either but it's closer than "could just as well have been you"
(Even though it is physically impossible if everyone have that thought it gets true)
don't understand
Now from A+B you can easily get that since every person on earth could be you, the actions you do is based on how good/bad it is in total for all people and therefore the force of good would be that people understand that it would be the best action for humankind as a whole.
you could get a lot of things if that is what you are trying to get. but I never said anything of the sort.
Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 06:07 travis wrote:
I am selfless in that sense, from time to time. So clearly you are wrong when you say "none are selfless in that sense".
You can't be selfless like that "from time to time" either you are like that all of the time or you are not like that at all. What you are referring to here is just empathy.
no you are absolutely wrong. I live by ideals and sometimes I am strong and clearminded enough to follow through in practice, sometimes I am not. It is *not* because of identifying with specific situations (though that certainly can be a catalyst for clearmindedness).
To make my point clear, look at it like this: As soon as you start to judge people you are not selfless in that sense. Therefore if you at a point feel that you are doing it like that and at another point you do not help someone it was just the circumstances that got you doing it and not the selflessness of yourself.
I agree with that first sentence. But it does not contradict me if you read my previous paragraph.
|
On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where".
So you believe nurture creates our personalities and by nature were all the same?
EDIT: clarification
EDIT 2:
If so, how did you arrive at this belief? Because I believe intelligence, at the very least, exists to some extent. That changes decisions, and thereby changes experiences. Other things, such as emotional quotient are also pre-determined to some extent. They can be developed, but your base talent (for lack of a better word) at these subjects comes in to play
+ Show Spoiler +yadyadya just my opinion, not trying to pick a fight, just truly wondering how you arrived at your conclusion
|
On November 30 2008 06:44 travis wrote:
not "could just as well have been you"
rather "is you". well that isn't quite right either but it's closer than "could just as well have been you"
So, what "new age" crap is this?
Also I am was not looking into contradictions in your statements, I was just trying to take the same logic further.
Like:
1: People are good with each other due to them understanding that in a way other people are them.
2: From 1 follows that being good is treating everyone equally no matter who, where or when they are, since a random person in south Africa is as much you as your best friend.
The problem comes then of course with the notion of evil, if a guy gets attacked, should you then assume that the attackers are right since you are in a way the attackers or should you assume that the victim is innocent for the same reason?
The reason I might not make total sense to you is because you do not make any sense at all for me to work with. I just try to throw a ton of things at you till something sticks.
So it is between "Could as well have been" and "Is", is it a religious thing like the holy spirit? Or is it a perverted version of quantum theory? Please explain more. Edit: Or is it like the guy above says?
|
On November 30 2008 01:42 RaGe wrote:
altruism doesn't exist
this
No being is capable of consciously doing something that does not provide benefit to itself either physically or psychologically.
|
On November 30 2008 09:28 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote:
I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". So you believe nurture creates our personalities and by nature were all the same? EDIT: clarification EDIT 2: If so, how did you arrive at this belief? Because I believe intelligence, at the very least, exists to some extent. That changes decisions, and thereby changes experiences. Other things, such as emotional quotient are also pre-determined to some extent. They can be developed, but your base talent (for lack of a better word) at these subjects comes in to play + Show Spoiler +yadyadya just my opinion, not trying to pick a fight, just truly wondering how you arrived at your conclusion
I don't think I am a body or a brain.
Sure, intelligence - in whatever terms it is defined - exists. And you can say that it determines [x]. Or you can say that genetics determines [y]. Or that your upbringing determines [z].
But none of these things are me. My experiences are linked to them, sure. But they are not those things theirselves. I am not my body or my brain. I am my experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
