Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 17:07:44
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 16:31:44
> But... the self isn't wholly a construct. There are reality constraints (environment, genetic, experiences etc). And just because there isn't an essential essence (at the purely physical level of analysis) doesn't mean there can't be a functional essence on a higher level of analysis (e.g., that a self is a function from mental states to behaviours).
I suppose it depends on what you mean by a construct. Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self? I know what you mean about a functional essence, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists it is fragile and prone to fragmentation. And that fragility seems to problematize the idea that it is essential (it seems to me). I suppose one could argue that the functional essence is inherently fragile, but I would come back and say that's because it's a construct...
These are interesting questions. I'm a fat*ss foucauldian ho, so I probably see almost everything in terms of constructs. I resist any kind of idea of an absolute. For me it's very politically freeing, though I recognise that many people may consider my ideas to be postmodern w*nk, and that's OK!
poster:Tamar
thread:534847
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050725/msgs/536055.html