sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Yesterday I posted that I thought that there is no distinction between "no choice made" and "thinking I made a choice" - I think I choose. But I don't.
In response Willamena asked why I eliminate the distinction between "no choice" and the appearance, but am unwilling to eliminate the distinction between "choice" and the appearance.
What a great question.
A penny dropped straight away that the reason I was unwilling to eliminate it was because I was protecting a concept of me that I have constructed.
That was the easy bit, where this line of thought goes next I'm not sure. It's kept me occupied all night thinking about it.
I've been reading about Piaget recently and was thinking of how he saw the basic building blocks and processes of development as universal but how he saw development itself as the child's own construction. It seems to me that this is equally true of adults and it certainly applies to my unfolding concept of self.
I was then thinking about Piagets concept of 'centring' - how infants sense themselves to be the centre and the moving force of their world, and how he concluded that infants lack a concept of object permanence. Maybe infants are right. Maybe they understand what we don't and lose sight of this as they grow into adults.
This in turn took me back to Pelagius and how from his perspective to look into the face of a newborn is to look into the image of God, it makes sense to me in the terms outlined above.
Can it be that the selves we construct are mere vehicles for survival. The truth is what small babies know, and access to this truth is made evermore difficult because of the increasingly defended nature of the construct we refer to as 'me' ?
My head is spinning from this so I'd really appreciate some input. :help: