Me me, it's all about me!
I thought the most important point made during the discussion was that of Rob McNamara, namely that the term we were using was already value charged negatively, and that a more neutral fair term might be self interested. However, this point fell by the wayside as we continued to talk about self absorption.
There was some contention over whether a self absorbed person cared what others thought of them or not; I maintained that a person who was truly self absorbed would not care what others thought because other people are less important to them than themselves. However, others maintained that within a culture of images, a self absorbed person might be concerned with other's perception of this images as a manifestation of their self. In other words a self absorbed person is a person absorbed in how they are perceived by others.
This didn't exactly fit with the self absorbed artist or philosopher example, excluding andy warhol, who only cares about developing their own perspective on the world, not the perspective of others towards some ego image concept. This seem to lead us to the notion that there were different levels of self absorption, but there were hardly any meaningful criteria that were put out on the table for qualifying these different levels. Overall there were a lot of unanswered questions and disjointed positions with relation to this topic, perhaps because of its ego driven nature.
Rory did mention an interesting point that the self absorbed person would think of the world as themselves, much the same way a child associates their ego with the world. An interesting point for the philosopher's self absorption, due to philosopher's fascination with perspective and the world.