It seems to me that you and LVSN are slicing the implied concept this post describes into a referenced conceptual thing at different boundaries. I tried to explain how I see the difference, but found I’m uncertain in my guesses of both of your meanings, so all I can honestly claim is that both of your reactions are reasonable according to my mental concept parser, but that LVSN’s reaction highlights some of why I find this post important. Perhaps the point could be summarized, “it is important that any model of selfhood recognize that it is a thing which is defined by the thing itself”, thus including the same point you make and yet also distilling the insight the post is attempting to highlight.
It seems to me that you and LVSN are slicing the implied concept this post describes into a referenced conceptual thing at different boundaries. I tried to explain how I see the difference, but found I’m uncertain in my guesses of both of your meanings, so all I can honestly claim is that both of your reactions are reasonable according to my mental concept parser, but that LVSN’s reaction highlights some of why I find this post important. Perhaps the point could be summarized, “it is important that any model of selfhood recognize that it is a thing which is defined by the thing itself”, thus including the same point you make and yet also distilling the insight the post is attempting to highlight.