uǝlƃ ☤>$ > Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. I understand that I was being provocative with the specific formulation "we ARE" as if it were an absolute. > To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by which > parts compose the whole. I agree and only wanted to add to the composition "are" along with "have" and "act-out" . > The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order > frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they > organized?
To what extent are our identities/sense-of-self (inner experience and outer presentation) the superposition of our "emotions"? yes, we are more and less than that, yet for some purposes it seems we ARE that. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
