Cittasanto wrote:This is talking about non-self so no-one.
He was drawing attention to the irony of a "self" having external objects that belong to it, when in the first place, this thing that is seen as "self" is a complex concept composed of internal and external objects that can not be fully controlled. And how what is not fully under control be declared as being "mine" let alone external objects not physically attached to it? I'm not sure if I ever make sense.
Made sense to me, and I think I agree with this interpretation.
To paraphrase a wise philosopher
, it's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.
Well, that analogy doesn't quite work, how about:
A computer game character being programmed to be [or at least, appear] upset about losing in-game money?