So does one who does little of this, or does it artificially, have a self?

Need some modification of this so autistic folks aren’t seen as “less than” or “other than”. The definition of “self” seems inadequate here - one winds up with biological human beings who don’t have selves.

Social learning would then be imagining the world from the perspective of, say, Miss Manners? Or a talk-radio host? Wait... perhaps I’m confusing imagining with accepting. It could still be okay to see how things look from a particular vantage, say, “Yuck!” and never go back to that one. That, too, would be the “pruning of possibilities” I mentioned a few points back.

Yet I see its primary value as the developing of compassion, of this greater entity which transcends “selves”. This seems more like the most important life activity, but as a means for establishing individualistic “turf” it seems a tool which could be badly misused. How much pain is caused to others by “getting inside their heads” to learn how best to manipulate them? And how much pain is caused to ourselves if we seek doggedly to find and do the things that will most impress others - role-taking as a means of trying to earn love instead of to learn love?

Last revised: June 22, 2007
(c)2007 Dave Spicer
(back to project main page)