@de budding,
de_budding wrote:Arjen,
By going way back to your post describing 1st and 2nd order psychology I think I'm getting it now. But I've lost all perspective of how deni-all fits in.
But I quite understand the Ego now, and it seems to be a social entity, but then there is what the 'person is in reality'.
Is this a separate entity manifested by others prospective?
Could you recap which one was 1st psychology and which was 2nd?
And finally, last night I was still thinking about 'will', and it seems there are two types, the wills developed in response to 'us' and preference (necessity?) and ones developed inline with obligation, society; with others in mind (ego?).
Is this divide in any way related to your idea?
Dan.
De budding,
Deni-all fits in between first and second order logic. First order logic is a knowing; a reacting. Second order logic is a reaction to
thoughts of oneself. To do this one must first deny what is taking place. It is precisely what Kant's
a priori intuitions make so apparent: a priori certain insights exist which are denied to benefit the definitions of oneself.
Ego is indeed a social entity.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains ego as coming into existence because of the combination between common humanity and interaction between people. The benefits of giving are translated into benefits for the ego by forgetting that giving was the first step and only rembering that appreciation of others is nice.
First order logic is that which exists. Second order logic is that what can be positioned on top of first order logic: delusion. So, first order logic is consciousness and second order logic is self-consciousness. I cannot find good wikipedia pages on first and second order logic. The same difference is made in philosophical logic though, so I am going to link to that to at least lend a handhold.
first order logic
second order logic
When it comes down to wills I think you should reconsidder. There is only one will, but two categories of going about satisfying them: a
hypothetical and
categorical way.
I think, however, that you are trying to point something else out that I will state (and second). The thing I think you are pointing to is the coinciding of "goal" and ego, as well as "duty" and "self".
Hope this helps.