No, it nihilized it, and sustains It, within the disorder that it is contained, within.
In order 2 access all the simulated transitional mutations happening concurrently.
flipping the script is a good nihilization — as long as it is in the favor of the disadvantaged
John Rawls
Obviously each of us does not = anyone else, no one person equals any other person. We are all distinct entities despite that we share similarities of structures, qualities and experiential types. But it is morally beneficent to at least think in the way that we are all equal to each other.
The golden rule itself requires that we understand the fact that other people are not ourselves, but that they are similar enough to ourselves that we should try to act in a way that, whatever we think of and try to do as good for ourselves, should also be what we think of and try to do as good for them. This is basic logic.
1 Like
is other also self?
it seems coercive. you are me!
Both retain their separate identity as individuals.
The principle recognizes that they are both individuals with separate identities, rather than exact copies. That is what “other“ means. Not an exact copy… “Self” means an individual like the “other”—but not identically.
Obviously, it is not a reference to DNA, because that would mean twins could not be separate identities.
So, there is no self without other. You can’t recognize that you are a self that is an individual like the other, but not an exact copy, unless there is an other that is not you.
This is a principle that holds for more than just personhood… but it does hold because of (grounded in, describing) the original personhood—which always existed together, and are not opposites that cancel each other out.
That answers thinking that runs into the same error as those who say “self does not equal other, because I’m not guilty of the same sins as the other”.
Also… gleaned from several discussions… 
to be // valuer
to exist/act // valuing
to value // value
to be // existor/actor
to exist/act // existing/acting
to value // existence/action
to be // being
to exist/act // being
to value // being
self=other
(every self is an other to another self, every other is a self to itself)
What is a self? What is an other?
A self/other is a being/valuer/actor who is/values/acts according to or out of alignment with its being/value(s)/act(s).
self=other is within a whole, as well…
ternary
tao/dao
What came first… the body… its actions… or its objectives (functions)?
How did objectives precede body/action if, in order to function, there need be a being and acting? How did being precede the acting/objectives if, in order to be, there must be active function? How did acting precede being/objective if action needs functional being?
Agent/master as if you are the patient/slave, and vice versa.