How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
I often wonder about the idea of 'self' and how it stands in relation to philosophy. Today, I was reading David Hume's suggestion that, There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self. The idea of self is central to ideas of authenticity of identity, but what is self exactly?The idea may be seen as underlying questions arising in body and mind, as well as in connection with the question of self and others. But, what is 'self' exactly? Does it exist in it's own right, or as a construct? Even if we only see it as a construct, most of us do feel a sense of self, and how do we make sense of this at all in a way which is useful and meaningful for us in life?
Comments (192)
You can lose your sense of self, and in so doing you will learn more about what the self is. Many who experience this loss of self refer ever after to the self as an illusion.
I do believe that the idea of self is one which we use in most aspects of our daily lives, but, at the same time, I can see that is a rather vague and abstract concept.
I think that the idea of loss of self is extremely interesting because it involves thinking beyond the most usual boundaries, and, of opening up to the idea of going beyond. There is a danger of fragmentation, in which identity may collapse detrimental, but, also, a possibility of opening up to aspects of experience which offer new possibilities.
It’s as easy as looking in the mirror, so it’s strange that such an idea is fraught with mystery. A regular old ID card will say more about the self than any philosopher.
You may say what's the fuss about, but I would be interested to know how you see the idea of the self. It may be seen as a psychological idea, but it does figure as an aspect of philosophy too.
But, surely, a regular ID card will only be about identifying the basics, such as name, and date of birth and, and has little to do with identity and the philosophical aspects of identity.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am sure you do. smile
What are you? What am i? What are people? Is that the question? Aren't we our violence, our envy, jealousy, pettiness, vanity, arrogance etc.? Or do you think there is a self that's not part of all that?
I think that the question 'who am I?' is indeed central to psychology and philosophy, but I do believe that it can be asked on many levels. It may appear to be a superficial question of identity, but I also believe that it goes much deeper. It involves questions about ego identity, and what lies behind the surface. How do we differentiate ourselves as individuals?
It does go much deeper. I was teasing.
There's also the loss of self suffered by some schizophrenics who cease to be able to differentiate between internal and external events. This is accompanied by a defect in the posterior cingulate cortex, one of several parts of the brain thought to be responsible for our sense of self.
Another is the anterior cingulate cortex which is responsible for evaluating social processes. I think this is a big clue about what the self really is. Shallowly, it is the object of self-reflection and self-awareness: not the differentiation between you and your environment but your awareness of this differentiation, of your distinctness which allows you to be an object of your own subjective appraisals.
But deep down I think it's probably a feature of social behaviour, related to the theory of mind and empathy: an ability to empathise with (real or hypothetical) others' (real or hypothetical) evaluations of us. There's an element of mind-reading with scattershot effectiveness in social interactions in humans... What you see when you read the mind of another but they're thinking about *you* is self.
I do agree with you, and, really, I am just trying to think about the way in which self is not simply an aspect of psychology, but a philosophy construct as well. It is involved in philosophy discussions about identity and lies behind many other aspects of discussion. So, I am really raising it as an area for thinking about in connection with philosophical ideas about being a person, including the dichotomy of body and mind.
I think that you are most probably right and that self is most probably encoded in each cell, because I am certainly not trying to argue that self is an elusive concept. However, I do believe that some thinkers have seen it in that way in the past, but may be getting to the point where self is not seen in connection with a dualistic model. But, even now, it may still be seen in that framework if the self is seen purely in biological terms.
I'm with the ancient Vedas and Buddhist dharma on this question – it's largely pointless. 'Thou art that' and 'anatta', respectively. Rather: what are we that we can ask "who am I"? According to Spinoza, what we are (as a sentient species) is 'a finite mode sub specie durationis in bondage to our passive affects and imagination (i.e. the lowest kind of knowledge)'.
Check out Antonio Damasio's Looking for Spinoza (re: the core self) or, alternatively, Thomas Metzinger's The Ego-Tunnel (re: phenomenal self model) for the contemporary neuropsychology of "self". And perhaps my sketch of the ethical implications of a 'non-identity tensed self' (scroll down) you'll find of interest as well (caveat: I'm still untangling the knots in this one).
Long before we superficially attempt various ways to do so, simply being embodied at an unique point in spacetime relative to all other bodies deeply individuates each of us.
Read again what I actually wrote, Jack. "Self" is not encoded, it is the cell itself that is solely excluded from itself as a nutrient's resource (food).
:100:
"Look inward" or "look to the self" is largely meaningless drivel pumped out by right-wing figureheads like Jordan Peterson as a way to distract from the pervasive systemic oppression and injustice all around us and preserve the status quo.
Ever notice how that image in the mirror is constantly changing? How that id card photo never quite captures what you or others think you look like ? How you dig up old writing of your and hardly recognize the person who wrote them ? Sounds like there’s a mystery there somewhere.
I think that 'self' in schizophrenia is extremely interesting, including Laing's idea of the divided self. It points to the way in which self hinges on a fabric of social meanings and we are subjects. The sense of self and cohesion may be torn asunder by conflicting messages, especially those in socialisation and families.
I have already said that I am not trying to come up with a clear psychology definition. I am raising the idea of self for philosophical consideration for anyone who is interested.
I am glad that you have raised the issue of the Buddhist notion of self, because it was in the back of my mind when I wrote this thread question.
I am about to log out for tonight as its really late, and unsure how important my question is as a philosophical issue, worthy of fuller consideration. But, I will look at any further replies in the morning.
I am just about to log out, but I just looked at your comment and I am wondering about the question of memory and identity. I think that it is an important part of identity, but I think that it goes beyond this, especially in the philosophical basis rather than psychological aspects of identity. I think that we define ourselves as human individuals on the basis of past history, but who we are in terms of ego identity and connection with reality is far more complex.
Is it really an "idea" though? I'd say that in most cases it is more like a sense, feeling, or experience.
Of course, the "self" can be conceptualized and philosophized about but it is the experience of identity, of what we are and what belongs to us, that is at the bottom of it.
I wouldn't describe it as beyond usual boundaries so much as a liberation. The self is no a longer burden.
Actually looking at that written out i think I mean the same thing you do. Lol
What danger of identity collapse do you mean? Is it collapse or change? How fo you tell the difference?
The self is information about the way information has organized itself. It is an ongoing process of information integration and accumulation and rationalization. As new information is integrated, some old information is discarded, in an evolutionary manner.
People/the serious, who have asked such questions are known for the price they have paid to find out. They are known to give up the crutches of security and comfort, that we can't seem to live without. Questions like these surely require more than a superficial curiosity. Not the cup o tea of washed up, burdened, corrupted, neurotic, reactionary minds ( not pointing to you, but to whom the shoe fits). These things can't be approached by medicated, drugged/alcohol, sloppy, idle people with food dripping on their shirts, while they are sitting on a recliner watching TV, as an exmaple.
Not at all pointless, but easily misconstrued. The seminal Buddhist sutta on the nature of self:
In the early Buddhist texts, 'Vachagotta' was the figure who posed metaphysical questions - does the self continue to exist after death, and so on. So the Buddha's refusal to answer amounts to a refusal to engage in speculation on such questions, in keeping with his 'no-metaphysics' approach. Vachagotta appears in various dialogues as the archetypal 'philosopher', full of puzzling questions, but eventually converts.
'Is there a self' - leads to 'eternalism', the idea that there is an unchanging immortal self. In a culture that accepted re-birth, this manifest as the belief that one can continue to be reborn indefinitely in propitious circumstances. This is identified as the view of the Vedic tradition.
'Is there not a self' - leads to nihilism - the belief that there is nothing beyond death. Many people in WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) tend towards this view.
'In keeping with the knowledge that all phenomena are not-self' - all phenomena, everything that can be experienced through the six sense gates, is devoid of self. Here, 'self' is conceived of as an inherent principle of existence, something that is self-existent or inherently real. Nothing in experience has that characteristic, hence, everything is 'anatta', without self. But it's important to re-state that this is not a nihilist point of view, that nothing is real, as suffering is indubitably real.
I think self-deception is a significant issue for human beings. People hold views of themselves that are far from accurate or useful. A sense of self is generally constructed from dubious source material.
I have a very simple theory (@Banno won't be happy) about the self. It appears that the self is, inter alia, a relation.
I mulled over who TheMadFool is. Well, I've been given a name, TheMadFool. I'm aslo a child of..., then I'm a parent of..., I'm also a spouse of..., I'm an employee of..., so and so forth. Then I imagined myself getting fired, no longer an employee of... i.e. a part of my self is erased. If god forbid my parents, my spouse, my children, my friends, cross over, I lose parts of my self along with them. Every relation that I build defines my self and ergo, every relation that ends for one reason on another subtracts from my self.
However, one might claim that for a relation to exist, there must at a minimum be two objects. Barring reflexivity, yes that's correct. If so, implicit in relations is the preexistence of a self independent of the relation itself. For instance, for the relation 2 > 1, the numbers 1 and 2 must already exist i.e. the self comes before any relations whatsoever.
Yes, correct! Nevertheless, unlike 2 and 1 in the example above, there's no difference between selves conceived thus i.e. there seems to be a generic self. As oxymoronic as that sounds it is the truth. The relations define the self - it gives the generic self its unique identity. TheMadFool is TheMadFool only based on the unique set of relations fae possesses. That's why when relations are broken - a friend, family, colleague dies, you lose your job, etc. - we get the blues, we might even experience severe melancholia, we lose a part of our self.
The generic self needs some more explaining. Imagine your friend and you go laptop shopping together. You go to this store and both of you like the same laptop make. You buy one and fae to purchases one. Before you leave the store, you joke about exchanging laptops - both of you won't mind because the laptops are identical, there really is no reason why you shouldn't switch the laptops, fae takes yours and you take faer.
You go home and your friend goes to his. You install Windows, photoshop, and facebook on your laptop (relations). Your friend installs Linux, instagram, and geogebra (relations). Now, both laptops are no longer the same, their generic self has been replaced by a unique self.
I finally realized that I had been conflating the generic self with the unique self. The former isn't you because your generic self is identical to mine and everyone else's. The latter is you (your true self) and you and I aren't same, everyone is unique in their own way.
It's a paradox really. The self, the unique self, is meaningful only as relations with the not-self. I think the sadness that accompanies loneliness, the absence of relations, indicates the unfulfilled desire of the generic self to transform into a unique self. Loneliness, on this view, is akin to death (the dissolution of all relations).
My two bitcoins.
Metabolism is both anabolism and catabolism.
Autophagy is the recycling process by which our cells keep themselves young. They continually break down and renew small parts of themselves in a kind of self-digestion; this helps to counteract harmful deposits which may form. Autophagy -- Greek for "to eat oneself"
The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society.
Are you saying a mother's sobs when she gets that dreaded phone call letting her know the only son she has was KIA isn't real? You're kidding right?
As for the self being a "...social construct..." I agree insofar as relations are included in it, the best-case scenario being "...social constructs..." boil down to relations.
The mother's sobs are real, but they aren't the sobs of the "generic self". They are the sobs of the "unique self".
Your agreement or disagreement doesn't mean much to me ,so feel free. But my emphasis was on the "garbage bin", not on the "social construct".
But the point is, one cannot start one's inquiry from that premise. That would be called a bias. The existence or the lack of any generic self has to be discovered at the end of the inquiry, and has to be supported by some reasoned evidence.
The self at large is the brain's repertoire of information. Like the will, it is fluid and dynamic, it changing all the time. It is what is drawn upon subconsciously by the experiential self of the moment.
In consciousness, there’s no distance between
The thing observed and what is observing.
They are, likely, one and the same, and so
It is that we seem to have a self.
The ‘I' of Awareness could be a basic
Property of existence that can but observe
The brain quale that’s currently on display,
Being a subject mostly, not an object.
Nothing seems amiss.
Quoting skyblack
Can you elaborate a bit? I didn't quite get you.
Well something was amiss when you objected to me saying,
"The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."
and tried to refute it with the mother's sob example. I had to straighten that. After straightening, yes, nothing is amiss.
Quoting TheMadFool
It's isn't that difficult. please take a minute to read this and coiuple of realted posts on the same thread.
Excuse me there was a typo in
"The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely."
Please read "unique self" as "generic self"!
Quoting skyblack
:up: At the heart of a "self" is a "universal", molding information onto itself.
I wouldn't have noticed that error had you not brought it up. Thanks ;-)
Ah! So you think people are dumping ideas, like we dump garbage, on each other? I'm only half-convinced because the analogy seems to break down once you consider the fact that ideas & relations come in two flavors - good and bad. I can understand bad ideas & relations as items you can stick a post-it notes which read "trash can", to be disposed of at the earliest but, what about good ideas & relations? Shouldn't good ideas & relations be appreciated from the heart and kept as far away from the grabage can as possible?
That said, I do see where you're coming from. The signal to noise ratio is so damned low that coming across a good idea or relation is going to be a once in a blue moon event. Good point!
Well. people and society dump more than ideas, surely! Keep in mind the dumpers are your parents, your peers, your relationships, your schools, your work place, your boss, your wife, your children, the people posting here, so on and so forth. Ideas are the least of our worries! What you ought to be concerned about is how conditioning gets dumped. Racial, social,, economic, religious, political, ideological, affiliations and narratives all get dumped. The average person has nothing of their own! Everything has either been dumped or borrowed. The measure of “good and bad” is done by the particular conditioning a person is conditioned by, therefore that measure has either been dumped or borrowed (which is also part of the dump).
You are quite right about the signal to noise ration. You know what’s even funnier? The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself. As that antenna is part of the dump. It’s a trash-y antenna, incapable of accurate measurement. However all is not lost, once in a blue moon is god enough! (no need to be greedy)
Quoting skyblack
I have similar thoughts about what Socrates said,
[quote=Socrates]The unexamined life is not worth living.[/quote]
I would love to examine myself but that would be futile because any bias I have will find its way into my self-report, effectively making the endeavor pointless. It would be like checking the accuracy of my watch with my watch - circulus in probando. To judge my judgment I have to believe in my judgment but that's precisely what I'm judging. By the way, what about rationality? Doesn't rationality improve the situation because even if it doesn't get to the truth, it seems capable of identifying bad ideas. That's an improvement, no?
As you will have already noticed, I didn't get to the point when one realizes that all my thoughts are actually not "original" (more on this below), just copies of preexisting memes that were/are circulating in the global community. Thus, it can be said, my unique self is but a collection of snippets of other people, unique yes but something to be proud about, no!
Just out of curiosity, how does your theory deal with originality - something that can be called one's own? If I have an oirignal idea, something no one's ever thought before, is it also garbage? Can't be because it wasn't "dumped" on me. Being one of a kind in this manner does seem to weaken your position because you could be a pioneer/pathfinder/trailblazer/founder and establish your unique self without rummaging through the trash other people have dumped on you. My hunch is that's why there's literally a mad scramble to be first in all manner of human activities. It gives the generic self good reason(s) to claim a unique self that's not simply a relation to an other. I'm not certain about this though, at least not as much as I'd like to be.
Your thoughts about Socrates may not be accurate. Upon closer look you may find Socrate's call is to examine, unlike the antenna that thinks it knows. The former centers on a healthy inquiry,
and the the latter in a delusion of knowing.
Regarding your own examination of yourself: Then one has to examine what right examination means. Not give up on account of faulty reasoning or an aversion to accountability. .
Copy that!
The Socratic call for self-examination serves a two-fold purpose then:
1. Make us aware of the problem - people are dumping stuff on us
2. Rationality is recommended to separate the wheat from the chaff
Becoming aware of a problem is the very first step towards a solution. Now that you've unplugged me too from The Matrix as it were, I at the very least have a choice on what kinda "garbage" I want to accept or reject. Come to think of it, actual garbage cans and dumpsites are very selective when it comes what we can put into them: Dry, Wet, Biohazard, Chemical, Plastic, Metal, Paper, Nuclear, so on. Interesting!
That's easy. Any choice from the trashcan/garbage will simply be more trash. This is rather simple logic isn't it. A choice born of trash can only be a trash-y choice. So it's better to throw that choice back into the trash can.
I agree with you that it is experience itself which is at the core of the self. It is as if we are able to step back from memories, and social relationships, and become aware of a cohesive centre within. This centre remains with us throughout life, as the underlying basis of identity and ability to sift shift information and experience wishes and make choices.
For psychological aspect of self identity, I would presume Freud and Jung has something to say about it?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I was under impression that David Hume, being the champion of scepticism, denies idea of self identity, because one cannot grasp the impressions and ideas of the corresponding self in perception ??? ... something like that. What did you think of it after reading Hume?
Generally, I am trying to think about the idea of self as a philosophical rather than psychological problem, and I can see why Hume questions the existence of self. Even though I came up with some kind of idea of what it may consist of, in the post which I wrote previous to this one, I do still have some reservations about how it stands. This is because it is not completely cohesive as a structure, or it has some kind of fluidity.
However, working on the assumption that each of us has some underlying centre, which we call the self, definitely was addressed by Freud and the Jung. I think what is essential to both thinkers is an emphasis on aspects of the self being conscious and other parts being subconscious. They work from the assumption that there is more to the self than one is aware of being at any given moment in time. Personally, I would agree with this basic approach because the subconscious, and I think that most philosophers recognize the subconscious as an important aspect of consciousness.
I think that your post about 'Madfool' in relation to others is interesting. But, what I do wonder about here is whether you are speaking about the persona rather than the self. We all may have slightly different aspects of ourselves which we present in different life situations and, presumably, you are not even seen as Madfool in every part of your life.
Generally, I think that we are social actors and show different parts of ourselves in different situations. I think we vary according to how we differ according to different roles which are adopting. But, nevertheless, my understanding of the self is that it is behind the scenes rather than being traced to what may be seen as 'the front' which we may present to others.
In addition, I think that as a colloquial term, the idea of the self is often about basic facts, and this is different from the experience of self. I remember shortly after leaving school, I was doing an exercise on a course in which we were asked to write about 'yourself'. The main way I interpreted this was to write about my 'self' in terms of my own mental states of consciousness. However, we had to read it out to the group and everyone else wrote about the factual aspects of their lives. I felt a bit foolish really, because I had interpreted the task of writing about self in an entirely different way from everybody else in the group. But, in such a colloquial way, self is about the facts, and this sense of self is different from the sense of self as a mental or philosophical concept.
If I'm reading you correctly, you can't hide all the time Jack. You may filter out some aspects of yourself you wanna keep under wraps but sooner or later it breaks through the containment zone and escapes with usually unsavory results.
That said, I doubt whether the side to us that we try to keep a secret is unique in any way at all - for better or worse, the thoughts, feelings we wish to conceal themselves are generic, everyone has them and ergo, if one insists it's got something to do with nature, it can only be human nature and not Jack's or TheMadFool's or any other individual's.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think this concept squares with what I said above. I like to see it as pretend-play but I don't view it as deception with intent to harm/injure/kill. In fact most of the time, social acting is done to keep things civil, cordial, and productive. The real world, as I said in another thread, is messy - errors will occur, people will get hurt, some even come to a sticky end. That's life!
Quoting Jack Cummins
That has a familiar ring to it. The self, at the level of mind, can only acquire it's unique identity if it itself is a one-of-a-kind approach to/take on reality - the lens with which to view reality a unique self offers is distinct from all others. So, the self isn't about (objective) facts as such but is actually about a (subjective) point of view.
I think that your response is interesting because it moves from Hume's idea of the human being as 'a bundle of experiences' to the question of free will, which is interlinked to the nature of the self. The view which you are stating has a basis in the perspective of B F Skinner, who regarded the sense of self and free will as illusory, as expressed in his book, 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'
I personally don't agree with Skinner because I think that he ignores the human ability for self reflection, which involves being able to gain distance From one's basic impulses. But, I can see that the argument he presents is fairly strong. I know that many philosophers go even further and regard consciousness itself as an illusion.
:point: Opinion
I find Hume's account on Self Identity interesting too. His denial of self identity has brought the speculations that could Hume had been into Buddhism's No Self philosophy? I was being sceptical about the speculations, but then why not.
Freud and Jung's idea of subconsciousness being integral part of self is also very interesting. I wonder if they were meaning the link between the self hidden in the subconsciousness and past and after life alchemy.
I am inclined to think that Hume may have arrived at a conclusion about no self independently. However, I admit that I find the Buddhist idea of there being no mind to be very interesting indeed. I see it as being interconnected with the idea of impermanence. I believe that many people take the idea of self for granted, but when one stops and thinks about it the notion is much more complicated.
I think that Jung takes a much broader perspective on the self than many psychologists and philosophers. That is through seeing the symbolic nature of experience, including his insights on alchemy, he challenges the view of the self which sees it simply arising in the individual brain. He sees the individual self as being interconnected with the idea of the collective unconscious. In this sense, he is perceiving the idea of the self as being linked to a source beyond the individual's own consciousness. I am aware that this idea may not be accepted by many current philosophers but it think that it may fit more with Leibniz's ideas of monads, or with Hegel's philosophy of mind.
I do agree that we can't hide our 'true' self all of the time because that would be about an inauthentic form of existence, and I think that it is probably dangerous to have to pretend. It may be a source of people becoming unwell mentally, or even physically because many physical aspects of health have a psychosomatic basis or origin. I think that the truth of the matter is that people have differing degrees of outlet for expressing certain sides of themselves. I certainly know which friends I can share different aspects of myself more than others. I think that most friendships or relationships probably work or fail according to this.
But, definitely the subjective aspect of self, as lens as well as the objective or intersubjective is what we know of being, as a self. I think that some people people probably find it hard to be alone, for the reason that they wish to block out this subjective encounter, or even block this out with distractions, ranging from light tv and media entertainment, shopping and addictions. The self, and its exploration may be in itself a dangerous territory, and we may be back again with the existential thoughts of Sartre and Camus.
Seems like you have it good Jack. I would've put in a word for you in the Oscar Awards Committee but, luckily or not, I don't have that much clout. Keep it up. You're doing what I expect you and everyone else to do. Tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear! This formula has been around since time immemorial (hyperbole alert!), withstood the test of time - I'm sure it works like a charm!
Quoting Jack Cummins
I concur! I have my ups and downs! It's part of the job description of an explorer. A vine that one grips for support turns out to be a venom-spitting viper. All this assuming of course that I am exploring which I highly doubt. Barely scratching the surface I would say but good enough for government work insofar as I'm concerned.
In summary, stick to the script, stop sacrificing something doable - good acting for something only the rarest of rare can pull off - perfect acting. I think I went off-script here. Do pardon if you forgot your lines because I got a little adventurous/distracted, I can never tell the difference. :lol:
Jack! Lights, camera, and ACTION!
Cut, cut, cut. Where the hell is Jack?
Retakes, anyone?
:up: Spot on! Our "intuitive" folk psychology blinds each of us to the fact that one is not who or what one believes one is – as the great (I think groundbreaking) neuroscience title by T. Metzinger alludes: Being No One^ is human being.
^A popularized, summary version by the same author is mentioned in the link at the top of this post.
Yes! (more or less) :clap:
Actually, I am almost still in bed today. I had a lot of trouble sleeping last night, so I am lacking in action today, but plan to go out exploring tomorrow. I often have one day in and one day out and I spend so much time exploring the corners of music and bookshops. I often feel that the books or CDs I find are aspects of myself, but I would rather be creating rather than just consuming. I would like to do art, but I need to buy a table first.
I do like to go out and spend time with others but have not really done much of this since lockdown, especially as I had to move. I am wishing to go out and find more activities but life has not gone back to normal at all really here. I am just hoping that we don't have any further lockdowns or else I would really become an exploding self.
I think that your idea of self as being an aspect of self organisation does make a lot of sense to me, although if someone had suggested it to me about 2 or 3 years ago, I would have found the idea as being rather absurd. I grew up in a Catholic background and had a strong belief in the soul. However, I have questioned my initial beliefs, including the idea of a soul in connection to views about consciousness, especially since using this site.
Currently, I do see us as living systems, and see self and consciousness in connection with this, although I still remain open to Jung's ideas on the collective unconscious, and to Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of memory inherent in nature, in the context of morphic resonance. But, it think that we do develop systems of information, as evident in memories and this is inherent in our sense of identity and self.
When I think about my own development of self and identity, it is bound up with significant memories, like I can remember clearly so much of my own experiences going back to when I was at primary school and, a lot of memories before that. It does make me wonder what happens to the sense of memories in people who have dementia. I have done some work with people who have dementia, and did find that they respond so well to listening to music from previous eras, and it could be that the songs enable them to gain more connections with aspects of their fragmenting selves.
I think that your discussion of the idea of the tension which the idea of an immortal soul vs the idea of lack of a self in Buddhism. It is an area of conflict which I have thought about. However, I don't believe that it is absolute because the idea of rebirth could still work with an idea of mind as being immanent, like in the thought of Gregory Bateson in, 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind'. However, definitely the idea of self, or as soul, in dualism definitely is in opposition to the Buddhist emphasis on no self. For me, it mainly shows how these matters have been thought about for a very long time.
Surely it all has much more to do with the philosophical aspects of identity than we care to admit. The basic facts such as name, eye-color, height etc. may not intrigue a being who is unable to see beyond his own limited periphery, but to others who must contend with this being as an object moving about in their lives, this information means a great deal. It is why we search for identification among the deceased and injured, or why such identification is stolen for nefarious purposes.
This does not embody Buddhism. Some teachers believe that to find the Eterrnal, one must drop them Self. I have found in my own meditative practices, it is quite the opposite. You shouldn't believe what you read. Believe in what you experience.
Yes, I have to admit that the basics of ID, as indicated are mostly likely more essential to our sense of self than I initially credited them. In particular, aspects of identity, such as gender, race, sexual orientation are vital to our understanding of who we are. We are bound up with other social beings and do define ourselves in such ways, even when we are alone at home . It probably goes very deep as well, to being about our bodies and whether we are happy with them or not. For example, if a person feels ugly it can have a crippling effect on self esteem. Similarly, a person's idea of bodily self is at the core of eating disorders and some other disorders. I do acknowledge that social identity and, the body are central to viewing the self. We are in mere fragmented selves, living in tunnel vision.
I am not sure at all about what it can be. But at least at practical and at conscientious level for me, is like the "guy" that I keep living all my life on. The "person" that I discuss the most, via my thoughts.
But imo that question is a really great philosophic mystery. And I think that not many philosophers dealt deeply with that matter (or maybe I haven't read them of course). But always seemed like an underestimated matter to me.
I would imagine that many Buddhists view the self differently from one another. What you lead me to think about is how I must be careful of making generalisations in this complex area. I am sure that this applies to people in the Christian tradition and many other religions, as well as people in a secular context. Based on my own experience, I would say that my own thinking about self changes. I think that the notion of self is complex and not that clear at all, which is why I wrote a thread on the topic.
I am glad that you appreciated the way in which the concept of self is extremely fuzzy. After I had just written the thread, I began to worry that people may think that I was asking a stupid question, but I do struggle around thinking that the idea, and this goes as far as my thinking is myself, as well as the others with whom I interact.
And it changes indeed! It's like the image of the mirror is also a"living" thing defining from your thoughts, ideas, all that invisible world that give your eyes the order to see that image.The way it changes, image "changes" too. I always found that really fascinating.
The actual idea is really absolutely majestic.
How and in which way all these invisible world connects and reforms in an invisible "entity" that we can't see but we have total consciousness about it.
All ideas, memories, psychological matters, thoughts everything in general come and unite in such way that all of us we recognize it as the "person" who answers to our thoughts and you have all that dialogue.
I know sounds stupid but for me is a huge lie that we come to this world alone. We are always 2.
It's been pointed out before, but when Hume says:
"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception."
(Bold added)
He refers to himself four times, to then say that he only sees a perception. That's not very persuasive if the attempt is not show that the self is an illusion, which is not entirely clear.
As to what a self is, is an incredibly hard question and likely a mystery. Coincidentally I was looking at some very interesting interviews with people who have been diagnosed with dissociative personality disorder. Some of these people had up to 11 selves! If that's not baffling, I don't know what is.
And I'm no less clear on what a self is.
Here's a link for anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7JK6pattE
EDIT: At around minute 17:45 you can see a person witching to another one.
It is indeed interesting to see that Hume keeps referring to himself, despite him trying to suggest that the idea of self is illusory. I think that it is extremely difficult to think outside of it framework of self because it is the basis from which we observe everything else.
I have seen a few people with dissociative states of consciousness in which the person has what appears to be multiple personalities. It does appear to be so unusual, although I am familiar with the idea of sub personalities, and this is not even clinical. I think that these can be like inner characters or archetypes, but the individual does not identify with them litrerally, but draw upon them as fantasy figures, or even use them as a basis for creativity. But, it does show that the self is not always in charge, and many forms of breakdown do show aspects of ego consciousness and the fragility of the self for some individuals.
Not me, nor I.
Sure.
We also often rationalize things away as if we were going to do whatever we ended up doing anyway. So it's not as if by having a self, we have absolute control of ourselves all the time. Often times we don't.
What I wanted to point out in the cases of DID goes in a different direction. One thing is to behave or even feel differently around types of people. Another thing altogether is being a completely different person and often not having a clue you were more than one person. So a self need not be unitary at all.
Which makes the whole topic very hard to grasp.
So what remains when the illusion (of "self-identity") is made explicit as such? The body – continuity of memories, feelings, awareness via embodiment. As Witty says "The human body is the best picture of the human soul." Foot & Dennett, Lakoff & Flanagan, Parfit & Merleau-Ponty, Nietzsche Hume & Spinoza, other thinkers all the way back to ... Epicurus & the Buddha (seem to) concur.
My thinking on the matter stems originally from first-hand experience, many times growing up I would have seizures and blackout upon awakening for a brief period of time I would have no memory. I did not know who anyone was including myself. I was battered and bruised but otherwise felt incredibly good, all there was, was my sense of being alive which felt fantastic. Then one memory would come to me and the rest would come flooding back. Spinoza said the body is the mind's object, it is through the body that the mind knows the world and that was my experience, there was nothing else, it just felt great to be alive. I believe the sense of self lives in the memory but to know it, is to know it has no identity it is process. People identify the I as their storyline, the history of their experiences remembered is then the self. The experiences of that given constitution is a like process all across the board as a given constitution in process of building a history of experiences.
However, even a "fragile" self is and therefore is still a self.
The self is grounded in the experience of being. The pure experience of being is always there.
The core of the self, the experience of being, is changeless and indestructible, and not "fragile" at all.
What changes is the stuff that is other than the experience of being, and that one identifies with like an actor identifying with the characters he impersonates in different plays.
The fragile bit is that part of us that is capable of change, in the same way the physical body may suffer an illness or even the loss of a limb without however this in any way affecting the core of who we are.
So, it is all a question of who or what one identifies with. I think this is what Jung meant when he was talking about mandalas as a device for refocusing or re-centering your psychological system and reintegrating it with that inner awareness of being as the core of your self. And, presumably, some forms of meditation work in a similar way.
I'm assuming this pure experience isn't necessarily available to the people who have it. The experience is mediated. Many people have a false sense of self and their experiences are rarely grounded or pure and are influenced and editorialized by a flawed personality or by a mental illness or simply through enculturation and socialization.
You may have a point there, depending on how mediated or distorted the experience is, which is probably hard to tell in cases of severe psychological disorder. But my guess is that so long as an individual is conscious there must be a basic awareness of existing on the background of which all other experiences take place. And that basic awareness may help us find an answer to the question as to how we understand the self.
But the fact that it is impossible to communicate does not necessarily mean that there is no common element in that experience that all conscious beings share.
Quoting 180 Proof
I see you are making a similar point. :up:
I like to think of my self as that within my body (whatever the self is, it is inside my body, I think) which is aware of (1) my physical limits/boundaries (my body) AND (2) the change detected by my senses.
Thus, my self knows what I am NOT (i.e., it is capable of differentiating between my body and what is not my body - or between itself and what is NOT itself, even if it is unable to exactly define itself); in addition, my self is also able to relate a sense-experience (a perception) to past forms of such sense-experience (it is aware of change).
Sometimes, I try to approach the problem of the self by asking myself what it is that I am aware of. So far, I have been able to conclude that the most basic things (or least complex things) I am aware of are my body and the change in the environment perceived by my sensory organs; in a way, I think of these (my body and change) as the basis of awareness (I don't think one would be able to be aware if one could not tell itself apart from the environment, and if one could not perceive change in the environment). In regard to the perception of change, I do not think that the act of perceiving (in addition to being able to tell what one is not) would be enough to give rise to the self - one would need to be able to detect change. Thus, at its most "basic" level*, I think, the self is that which is able to be aware of change in its environment (sensory organs detect/react to change in the environment but are not aware of it; the self does not detect change in the environment but is aware of it - but to be aware of such change, the self must be aware of what it is not, first).
So, what is it that you are NOT? What is it you are aware of (in its most basic form)?
* Well, in its most basic form, the self is that which is aware (but again, to be aware, I think one must be able to know/understand what one is not - and by one I mean an organism/a particular entity).
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
In systems and complexity theory, a naturally occurring thing is a "self" organizing system. A system organizes on it's own, and thus through this process creates a self. A system can be composed of various things in different ways, that through interrelation, self organize to some sort of singular thing ( a collective consciousness ). The multiplicity of things that they are and what they do, can be captured by the term "information". Information composes their structure, and how they act is information. It follows "a self is information about how information has organized itself " - this captures all systems, including humanity.
Normally what we are is the result of our experience ( memories ). Strictly speaking what we are is the result of DNA data, experience, and point in space ( relativity ) ( perspective ). These are all information about us. So, in the end, information put together in a particular way, in our unique way, is what we are, what we become, and this continues evolving in an ongoing process.
Things, and people, assemble themselves into themselves is the observation. Why should things assemble themselves into themselves is the question?
Could it be the case that Philosophy asks and seeks - what is it? how can we know about it?, while Psychology asks, and explains how it affects us, and what it does for us?
I think that the idea of considering what the self is NOT is important. It probably begins when the child first realises separation from mother and other people. But, of course, how we see other minds is important because most people don't end up coming up as taking a soliptist view. We think about oneself in relation to other selves.
But, I think that when we think about what the self is or isn't, apart from the role of embodiment, it involves being aware of invisible aspects of existence. In this, while we step back and are aware of being in the world, connected to others, there are certain aspects of self, which incorporate will, imagination and conscience. So, the idea of self is a whole spectrum of identity, rather than a single aspect, and is almost a universe within.
I think that your distinction between philosophy asking, 'What it is?'and how we can know and psychology focusing upon how this 'affects us' is useful. Psychology and philosophy are separate as disciplines now, but they still overlap so much, and I have been trying to ask about the nature of the self as a philosophy question. But, it is hard to distinguish the psychology and philosophy can this entirely, but I do believe that the philosophy is about the basic explanations, but, of course, we are selves, or minds, asking the questions.
One can even ask to what extent is the idea of self and mind different. That could involve viewing the self as being embodied. However, we are left with another question: what is mind exactly? Most philosophers don't view mind as a category of disembodied 'mind' in an idealist way. But, I think that philosophy is more about the thinking about the concepts, such as how self is figured out, in relation to other ideas, such as mind and body.
I think that the question of why particular things and selves assemble themselves in the particular unique way is one which can become overlooked. Generally, I think that it probably involves a complex mixture of nature vs nurture, but I do believe that as selves we have more of conscious choice in choosing how and what to select in the assembling of our lives.
I am sure that language plays a clear role in this and the whole nature of self-consciousness entails language. It gives us the framework for conceptualizing, constructing identity and the framework of our specific consciousness, which leads to the specifically human engagement with other beings and the environment.
I think that your point in one of your pictures, 'We can't see awareness be we are it' is interesting. It may be the universal blindspot. I wonder how this relates to looking in the mirror, because we are able to look at ourselves, from the perspective and others, although the mirror itself gives a reverse image. But, to see our mirror image or photograph, or even hear a recording of our own voice is a perspective of self from the outside, which is an alternative addition to the perspective of awareness from the subjective viewpoint alone.
But who are ‘we’ according to Nietzsche?
“What gives me the right to speak about an I, and, for that matter, about an I as cause, and, finally, about an I as the cause of thoughts?””
“…a thought comes when “it” wants, and not when “I” want. It is, therefore, a falsification of the facts to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.” It thinks: but to say the “it” is just that famous old “I” – well that is just an assumption or opinion, to put it mildly, and by no means an “immediate certainty.” In fact, there is already too much packed into the “it thinks”: even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself.“
“On the one hand, we are, under the circumstances, both the one who commands and the one who obeys, and as the obedient one we are familiar with the feelings of compulsion, force, pressure, resistance, and motion that generally start right after the act of willing. On the other hand, however, we are in the habit of ignoring and deceiving ourselves about this duality by means of the synthetic concept of the “I.” “
If you have not already done so, it would be helpful to identify the source of the quotes. They are from Beyond Good and Evil 16-17.
ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"—even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula—"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently"... It was pretty much on the same lines that the older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates—the atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself).(BGE 17)
He is not denying that we think: “ONE thinks”. What he rejects is an “interpretation of the process” by which “the ‘one’” “does not belong to the process itself”.
This is easier to understand if we look an earlier section:
But if we stop there we will not understand him. He continues:
He is not critical of Descartes' “I think” but of the notion of a thinking substance, which Descartes identifies with his immortal soul. The soul is not something we have. In his refinement of the soul-hypothesis Nietzsche posits a “soul of subjective multiplicity”. This solves the problem of the seeming mystery of a thought that comes when it wishes rather than when I wish. It is not that the thought has some kind of independent existence and comes to me from elsewhere, but simply that there is not something within me, an “I” or “ego” or “little ‘one’” that is the agent of my thoughts. This is not a denial of agency, it is a denial of something within me, some substance or soul-atom that is the agent.
There would have to be agency for Nietzsche in the sense of a subjectivity, since Will to power is grounded in subjectivity. The question for me is what sort of agency or subjectivity is this? How does it differ from Kant’s , for instance? You say thoughts don’t have independent existence for Nietzsche. What do you mean by independent? In what way are they dependent on my subjectivity? If we follow the postmodern readings of Nietzsche ( Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze) , subjectivity for Nietzsche is a difference of forces. This means that subjectivity is always outside of itself. Not outside in the sense of being ‘caused’ by empirical objects in the world , but outside in the postmodern sense of a subjectivity whose very essence is in that it is produced by an outside.
Kant's concept is unitary. The 'I' is for Nietzsche a multiplicity.
Quoting Joshs
"ONE thinks"
Quoting Joshs
In my opinion, this multiplies that problem because we must now provide an interpretation of interpretations.
ONE what? Where is the unity in order to talk about a singularity? In what sense is a subjective multiplicity a unity? Didnt you just quote Nietzsche saying we need to get beyond the ‘one’? Quoting Fooloso4
No. The distinction is between 'one' as in what someone might think or say or do (see how often he says "one must" in the passages above) and 'one' or 'I' as a substance or "soul atomism" as:
Quoting Fooloso4
The little one is that:
He distinguishes between an old refinement and a new one.
But this isnt a functional unity, and it isnt an inside as opposed to an outside. In sum, it is very different from Sarte’s notion of subjectivity and agency.
Sometimes we are conflicted and at odds with oneself. Plato points to this with the story of Leontius in the Republic.
Being conflicted and at odds with oneself is another way of describing the idea that experience is becoming. Conventional ways of thinking about agency, subjectivity and the self make change derivative of self-present entities and objects.An object appears to a thinking, experiencing subject whose ‘self’ can be differentiated from what it experiences. Nietzsche spearheaded a revolution in thinking that places difference, change and becoming as prior to presence. This is the essence of Will to Power. Being at odds with oneself simply IS what the self is.
what is 'self' exactly... how do we make sense of this at all in a way which is useful and meaningful for us in life?
Personally, I've always enjoyed Kierkegaard's idea of the self, as a verb or an act of continual movement (being that the self is continually created and re-created throughout a lifetime).
Here, this idea of the self essentially posits it as a relation, that relates itself to a finite and an infinite aspect.
The finite aspect is the necessary, the relation to the concrete here and now, to the reality of living as a definite something in the world.
The infinite aspect is all about possibility, to create new thoughts, new ideas, to bring into existence new creations, to change oneself into becoming something new by choosing from an infinite number of possibilities.
A balanced self then, is a relation between these two aspects, to choose from infinite possibility, and then to make this choice concrete by actualizing it in the finite. This balance is a continual movement, as the self changes over a lifetime of experience. This idea of self also requires overcoming anxiety into a "leap of faith", that is, to have the courage, passion, and conviction to make a choice from infinite possibility and committing to it in our finite reality.
The loss of self then, Kierkegaard would say, arises from an imbalance in the relation to the finite / infinite - i.e. to be trapped in the current finite self relation, unable to actualize and to change, or trapped in infinite possibility, a dreamer, with no hope of making those dreams "real."
So, the self then - a verb, an act, a continual movement - an unfolding project of taking what we find ourselves with as beings in the world, and through a passionate commitment, or "leap of faith", relating to something outside ourselves to bestow our lives with meaning. One could say, a subjective meaning, or subjective truth - "to become what one is" - this choice / meaning, is all up to you.
In my understanding a body of information ( a self ) integrates more information onto itself, in every moment of consciousness. The information cannot fit any old way. The established body of information has its own momentum, so is biased in how it integrates new information along its path. This suggests a determinism, but there is also a slight element of randomness in regard to how well new information can be integrated with the old. This inability to integrate new and old information causes novel information integration, and so a slight shift in what constitutes a self.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, I agree. Words are symbols (of information), and language is a pattern of symbols. Language express our unique patterns of information entanglement ( integration ), so expresses aspects of our peculiar consciousness.
I do realise the importance of the concepts and definitions in philosophy, - clarifying and reflecting analysing, and inventing the new (if needed). I was reading about Jung last night, and it said "Ultimately Jung claims, the Self is fully realised in death." I thought it is a kind of mystic way of description, rather than scientific, which sounds subjective and impossible to prove or falsify with scientific methods.
I think that I do remember reading Jung's view that the self is fully realised in death and finding it a bit puzzling really. It is certainly not the way we accustomed to thinking about death in the Western world and I think that such an approach is probably why a lot of people regard Jung as a mystic. I think that he was a bit ambiguous on the issue of life after death, but hinted at it more in his later writings, especially his autobiographical, ' Memories, Dreams and Reflections.'
I find the idea of the self being realised fully in death as being a little odd, I have to admit. What I would be able to accept more, is that people may have more knowledge of the self as they approach death, in terms of reflection. I often think that the extent which we know ourselves is often in retrospect, because we don't always know who we are fully until we are placed in specific circumstances., That is because these may stretch us beyond the predictable, and may even change our innermost sense of self
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sure. An inspiring and deep thought on the point. :up: :fire:
Kierkergaard's understanding of the self as 'continual movement' sounds interesting. I have to admit that I have read hardly any of his writings. But, I have a few books by him, which I downloaded, so, perhaps, I should read them in the near future, and I may be able to discuss his ideas further with you, at some point.
The question of whether the self is linear or not is a good question really. Definitely, historical developments are important but I see your point about a melody not being fully realized until the end of the song. The developmental aspect of self seems to me to be about how we integrate our latest experiences.
I know that when I have upsetting experience, which are usually based in social life, they throw me into turmoil. They feel 'raw' and it takes a while before I achieve a sense of equilibrium again. Integrating them takes time and painful experiences often become so different at a much later stage, when they have been placed in the context of the long term memory and perspective of self. But, integrating them, does draw upon core self, which goes so far back into the distant past. So, in the larger scheme of self, past and present collide, but this process itself is part of the ongoing development of the underlying self, as a structure of meaning and thinking.
I agree that part of the problem is how we identify aspects of the self, including the fragile. But, so much comes down to how we identify and think about the self, and I am aware that many don't stop and see the self as fragile at all. I think that it is a precarious concept, psychologically and philosophically. But, many people take it for granted, for better or worse. I wonder how much different it makes, whether we analyse it or not. How much of it is an aspect of life which is behind the scenes of experience or can be brought to the forefront. I am inclined to believe that it an important aspect of the examined life, but it may be that many prefer to remain blind.
The latter sentence contradicts the former. There's no question at all – self, as I said, is nonlinear (i.e. a process that always integrates "our latest experiences" as we experience them). Just listen to a song.
Interesting, and I do like songs so much. So, do you see the idea of self as being a juxtaposition of past, present and even the future? I think that what you are saying certainly throws most conventional understandings of self upside down. I am certainly not opposed to this, and I am glad for any further ideas on this, because I am looking towards the most critical scrutiny of the very idea of self.
I was just looking back at my thread and saw your idea of self delusion. I think that it is an important aspect of existence, and I am wondering how can we overcome this? We develop ideas to buffer up our sense of self, security and identity. But, so much is about defense mechanisms and I am left wondering what it means to step outside of these entirely. We have our identity in relation to social structures and meanings, but as thinking beings I am left wondering about the whole process and possibility of facing and going beyond self and self delusion.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You must've skipped the "tensed self" link in the middle of my post on page 1 of this thread. In short, that's exactly the idea I propose.
I am not sure if I understand fully, but tensing of the self may be extremely important in our understanding. Perhaps, you could explain your own understanding in a bit more detail.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511805
It's been there the whole while, Jack, if you're interested; that's about as much spoon-feeding as you're going to get from me. Much simpler idea than it seems at a glance but, as you've noted, it does upend conventional notions of the monadic self.
I am not wishing to dismiss the ideas which you proposed in the first page of this thread, but I think that there may be so much more to be elaborated upon. I do believe that so much of self may be encoded in the biological basics of DNA, but do believe in the entire way in which this comes into play In the enfoldment of self is so much more complex.
Okay, I will look at the older posts.I think.that Neil Young is great anyway. He and others such as Dylan and Cohen may be the great philosophers of our time, even though seen a little bit differently. I also think that Bono of U2 is important, and I have just managed to get hold of the music of Bono's son, in the band, Inhaler. Perhaps, philosophy goes beyond books entirely and is an aspect of the ongoing process of creative exploration and thinking in life.
But, of course, you needn't engage in discussion with me. If anything, I have probably created so many thread topics and answering all of replies has left me rather exhausted. I will try to chill out a bit, especially before I create any new ones, for anyone who does wish to engage with me. But, perhaps, I just need some private reading time first.
This is the real challenge, Jack. To be aware of the games we play with ourselves and to become cognisant of the constructed persona we have become. I don't have the answers to this and I am not recommending an obsessive and paralysing intellectual examination of everything we do and think - that would bring its own problems. However, being aware of one's self-talk and asking some simple questions about our assumptions can work wonders.
I do come from the angle of seeing outside of the various social roles which we play in life. I came across this idea in social psychology, especially through reading, 'Games People Play, 'by Eric Berne, who looks at how a person is not identical to the various roles they adopt, including parent, lover, and to some extent, we adopt masks in most aspects of social life. I think that it would be possible for people to go too far in deliberating on the nature of how we are all playing 'games' in social life, but, on the other hand, the ability to be able to think beyond the various fronts and parts we play, and be able to distance oneself, is a way of being able to step back as a self. I do believe that many people are not really able to do or think about this at all really, and do see themselves as being identical with the various roles they play.
Try meditating and see if you can find where or what the self is. In Buddhism it’s called “anatta” (Pali) — non-self. Just impersonal changing phenomena.
In our daily lives, I don’t think there’s much thought about the self. It’s an idea more basic than mind or subjectivity, but when you look at most of our activity, I don’t think “self” actually plays a big role as a concept. Much more about habit and automaticity.
Agree. But more importantly there are people who, for instance, think they are worthless, dim-witted and unlucky and constantly see evidence for this. But what others might see is someone who is resourceful, creative and fortunate. That's where it gets interesting. And one of the reasons Narrative Therapy was developed. People construct views of who they are based on self talk which is often triggered by negative experiences as children.
I agree that many people don't spend too much time dwelling on 'self-concept', they are busy getting on with juggling the various roles.
I think we can underestimate just how many do reflect on the conflicting aspects and demands made upon them to be e.g. good mothers, effective employees, loving wives, caring daughters, supportive friends.
Our sense of self develops early and, even if we are not aware of the concepts, there is a constant moving to fit in with ease. If we feel or are made to feel 'different', then there can be unease, or disease...
So, yes there is a difference between our internal view of self/ves and external evaluations thereof.
There is overlap between the explorations of psychology/psychiatry/sociology.
Where does philosophy come in ? Everywhere ?
In general, how likely are people to turn to philosophy for insight into the self ?
How does self-concept affect how we interact on forums such as this?
We bring ourselves, thoughts and ideas. We are multi-dimensional beings. Not all of which is on display here.
There is a clear link between self-concept and self-esteem.
Some people can be seen as compassionate and loving carers/husbands to outsiders and are esteemed accordingly. How much of this acting a role is true ? Ask the person being looked after...or who lives with the character.
A 'believer' might think himself like God or Jesus. A good person.
When their behaviour is challenged e.g. called out for cruel sarcasm, they are horrified. That is not who I am ! Perhaps not, but it is how they act that counts.
A person might not want to retire from work because that is the area where they derive self-esteem.
Their other self/ves, as Mum/Dad or wife/husband, perhaps not so much. But hey, they now have time to look after the grandchildren - unpaid childminders have clear value.
Anyway, enough of my early morning thoughts.
There is a lengthy article here:
https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/
Scrolling down - there are 10 examples of self-concept, including positive and negative aspects.
How it affects interpersonal communication on internet forums.
Quoting Self-concept
‘Self’ is a tricky notion. I think it’s a construct in the same way that everything is a construct, and that we feel a ‘sense of self’ in this desire to consolidate interaction - to make it useful and meaningful.
It is what does the consolidating, though - and how - which proves confusing. This is the role of awareness, as @PoeticUniverse suggested in the image he posted, or self-organisation, as @Pop suggested - not just awareness, though, but also connection and collaboration: qualitative interaction.
‘Self’ as an object (3D) is consolidated by interaction as an event (4D), an act of observation/measurement.
‘Self’ as an event/process (4D) is consolidating through interaction as experience (5D), evaluation of intentionality/will.
‘Self’ as experience (5D) is open to consolidation with interaction as relation (6D), feeling potentiality/possibility.
‘Self’ as relation needs no consolidation - it is an awareness of unity or oneness with all of existence, of no-self.
It is in this interchangeability between ‘self’ and ‘interaction’ across dimensional levels that we can navigate an understanding of reality enabling us to observe, experience, relate, and then feel, evaluate and act more clearly, accurately and efficiently.
Just some initial thoughts.
The idea of self must come from somewhere inside of one's body, if it had to be the idea of self. So it was either admitting the self is in one's mind, or the mind itself, which will demolish his empirical system of human nature, or say "self doesn't exist." He must have opted for the latter.
I definitely agree that the self is a 'tricky notion.' It is experienced meaningfully through self awareness and in connections within interaction.
Your focus upon how this relates to various dimensions of awareness is a response which I find to be particularly interesting and, @Amity also speaks of the multidimensional aspects of the self. Several months ago, I remember discussing art with you in relation to dimensions. I do believe that the self is a construct observed and consolidated in these various dimensions. You may be right to say that the various aspects are consolidated in one dimensions above the experience.
I think that many people would question the idea of the self in terms of dimensions, because it seems rather abstract. However, my own intuitive experience suggests that it may happen in such a way. I certainly feel that I am moving into dimensions when processing experiences. Many models of psychology don't allow for such a viewpoint. However, some perspective of consciousness based on quantum physics and various thinkers in the transpersonal approach to psychology and philosophy do point to various levels of consciousness and, offer a much wider framework for understanding the self.
I think that it varies how people understand the concept of self, within different psychology models and within the various systems of meditation. Also, I think that individuals vary in the way in which they think about the self. Some people probably operate on a more automatic basis than others, and it all depends on how much people stop and reflect on the processes. In some ways, psychology in Western society has probably made us more conscious of the self. Also, this is probably true of the focus of psychotherapy. But, I do think that the models of how we think about the self probably affect how we conceptualize the experience of self because it is an interpretative process.
Thanks for your links on self concept and self esteem. I think what is interesting in these is the cultural aspects of thinking about the self because I am sure that the whole way we think about the self is in a social context. So, while there are probably universal elements of experience of the subjective experience of self we live in a world of social meanings and values.
I think that the point about how self is thought about in relation to internet identity is especially interesting as well. I think that my own sense of self is affected by interaction on this forum in particular. When I feel that I am doing badly here I feel that my own self esteem is affected detrimentally, just as if it was happening at work. Similarly, when I feel that I have meaningful interactions on the site, I do feel validated as a human being, and I think that this definitely gave me a sense of self worth during the isolation of lockdowns.
True— but this can be said about literally everything.
Quoting Jack Cummins
In some ways. In other ways we’re all mostly automated, unconscious beings. There’s no way around it. From our breathing and heart beating to our internal workings of our organs, there’s far more unconscious activity going on than conscious— leaving aside more complex behavior, which is itself largely unconscious (though it does vary).
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. Our understanding of self is like the understanding of the world— it varies, it involves interpretation, perception, cultural conditioning, and so on. The same is true of human being (human nature) and existence in general. Why we think in terms of a “self” and what this term embodies is an interesting question. I think a major influence is from Descartes, but that’s not saying much.
I am not convinced that we are that unconscious and I think that we have the ability to develop as self conscious beings. In some ways, I think that the experience of suffering may often lead to a much more intense experience of self, as a waking up experience. Also, I think that we have a certain amount of choice about how we develop as individual selves, and it probably involves a certain amount of separation from the social group. We live in a society in which individualism is apparent and this probably gives rise to a stronger self consciousness, but it probably does mean that a certain amount of narcissism comes into the picture. However, I do believe that there is scope to go beyond this, with a view to greater creative freedom, especially through reflective awareness and consciousness.
I think that it is interesting to compare Hume and Jung's understanding of self, because Jung certainly didn't think that we are just 'a bundle of experiences'. The more I think about this issue in relation to the many varying responses on the this thread it seems to me that the idea of self is interrelated to the mind and body problem. I tend towards the view that mind is dependent on the body, but I think that the body can give rise to such a sense of evolving consciousness, including heightened states of self awareness.
There’s nothing to be convinced of— it’s a simple fact. Yes, we can develop as human beings and we can think and plan and develop awareness. The fact that most of our existence is not directed by conscious activity doesn’t man conscious activity doesn’t play an important role in our lives.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I’m not denying that we have choices. But when you look at your average behavior, it doesn’t involve rational choice and isn’t deliberative.
General Gendlin would say it’s ‘implicative’, which is a more intricate notion and ordered notion than rational deliberation.
Didn’t know he was a General. :wink:
I think that we have the capacity for rational and deliberate behaviour but it is just that many people don't get stretched enough. It is often only rare circumstances or experiences which push people to go beyond what Guirdjieff and Colin Wilson described as 'robot' consciousness. But, I do believe that gradually more people are becoming 'individuated' more fully, as Jung describes it. Maybe it is time for the philosophers and humanity to wake up to greater self knowledge and consciousness.
Perhaps such an awakening would lead to more
deliberate behavior not because it was more ‘rational’ but because it went beyond the limits of rationality.
“…when we sit down to try to figure out what will happen in the future, it usually seems as if the thing to do is to start with what we already know. This progression from the known to the unknown is characteristic of logical thought, and it probably accounts for the fact that logical
thinking has so often proved itself to be an obstacle to intellectual progress. It is a device for perpetuating the assumptions of the past.”
George Kelly
I definitely don't hold a view an emphasis upon rationality or greater consciousness which ignores other aspects. I think that balance is of key importance as suggested by Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World'. He points to the need for science, reason, intuition and imagination' being central, and believes that emotions are important. So, any idea which I have about rationality and self understanding would involve greater understanding of all the various aspects of the brain and human consciousness, rather than a lopsided development of the self.
Quoting Xtrix
:100: :up:
Unconscious doesn’t have to mean automatic and split off from consciousness. Enactive, embodied approaches to cognition reveal the body as integrated with mind in a complex and inseparable fashion. Each subsystem of the body is reciprocally interconnected with all the others , so that the person operates as a functional unity. What this means for the idea of the unconscious ia that what is outside of awareness is not necessarily cut off from it. Rather, the unconscious is a kind of implicit consciousness. One can think of this in terms of levels of awareness rather than functionally independent chambers as Freud’s psychodynamic theory had it.
The reason that subliminal
advertising was such a dismal failure is that what is not important enough for me to be consciously aware of it cannot influence me at an unconscious level
This recalled to me a passage from Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind”, p. 177:
“Rousseau’s intransigence set the stage for a separation of man from nature. He was perfectly willing to go along with the modern scientific understanding that a brutish being is true man. But nature cannot satisfactorily account for his difference from the other brutes, for his movement from nature to society, for his HISTORY.
“Descartes, playing his part in the dismantling of the soul, had reduced nature to extension, leaving out of it only the ego that observes extension. Man is, in everything but his consciousness, part of extension. Yet how he is a man, a unity, what came to be called a SELF, is utterly mysterious. This experienced whole, a combination of extension and ego, seems inexplicable or groundless. Body, or atoms in motion, passions, and reason are some kind of unity, but one that stands outside the grasp of natural science.
“Locke appears to have invented the self to provide unity in continuity for the ceaseless temporal succession of sense impressions that would disappear into nothingness if there were no place to hold them. We can know everything in nature except that which knows nature. To the extent that man is a piece of nature, he disappears. The self gradually separates itself from nature, and its phenomena must be treated separately.
“Descartes’ ego, in appearance invulnerable and godlike in its calm and isolation, turns out to be the tip of an iceberg floating in a fathomless and turbulent sea called the id, consciousness an epiphenomenon of the unconscious. Man is self, that now seems clear. But what is self?”
This paragraph is excerpted from the chapter entitled “The Self”, which begins, “The domain now supervised by psychiatrists, as well as other specialists in the deeper understanding of man, is the SELF. It is another of the discoveries made in the state of nature, perhaps the most important because it reveals what we really are. We are selves, and everything we do is to satisfy or fulfill our selves. Locke was one of the early thinkers, if not the earliest, to use the word in its modern sense. From the very beginning it has been difficult to define...
“...We are suffering from a three-hundred-year-long identity crisis. We go back and back, ever farther, hunting the self as it retreats into the forest, just a step ahead of us. Although disquieting, this may, from the point of view of its latest interpretation, be the essence of the self: mysterious, ineffable, indefinable, unlimited, creative, known only by its deeds; in short, like God, of whom it is the impious mirror image...”
I hope this contributes to your understanding of the self. It is to be understood in contrast to what it replaced, the ancient soul. To truly understand the self therefore we must first understand what it replaced, and also why that replacement had to take place, which these mere excerpts cannot effect. They can only suggest that a larger understanding lies behind them.
By definition it does. Not everything unconscious is "automatic," true. It helps to give concrete examples: things happening at the cellular level are unconscious. Your liver's function is unconscious. Your breathing is usually unconscious, but can be made to function under conscious control. I liken much of our average behavior to breathing -- yes, you can control and direct it at times, but mostly it's unconscious and automatic. Most of our behavior is habitual. Habits are mostly unconscious, again almost by definition.
It's not that it's "split off" from anything, it's just how we live. If we want to define consciousness to include habit, fine. But then we're just off to playing word games again.
Quoting Joshs
We have no technical notion of "body," so to say they're "integrated" is meaningless to me. Yes, the human being is a complex entity. But that we knew already.
Quoting Joshs
See above about word games. Now we're just defining our way into believing that everything is conscious. But that's just not the reality. There are all kinds of things I do that I have no memory of, am not aware of, etc. -- from complex behavior like driving to the inner workings of my body. If we want to claim this is "implicit consciousness," then we're off to a computer model of the mind, where rules are "stored" somewhere in consciousness. That's not convincing to me.
Gene Gendlin uses as an example
of implicit consciousness driving a car:
Currently we are said to be “unconscious” of the background. We can drive the car “unconsciously”
while attending to other thoughts. But we don't mean that we could drive if we were unconscious
from a blow on the head. The background is not unconscious, but we need new terms to define
“consciousness” as vastly wider than the narrow scope of attention. And, our “background” is not just vague. We could not drive without attention if what functions were only a vague, peripheral knowledge of driving. Actually each detail of knowing how to drive functions
precisely
We could not act or speak as we do all day without the implicit function of the past, from all our previous behavior and cognition. The body can drive home without our attention, but much more is involved also when we pay full attention, not just the few details to which we are attending. We can attend only to very little at any one time. Vastly more functions implicitly. That includes where we're going, why we're going there, when we need to get there, that we will need to get gas, that that rattle noise is just the stuff in the back seat, that all those cars coming at us are really in the other lane, that a piece of rusty metal in the road might blow out the tires, etc., etc. Countless items function, usually quite appropriately. We don't explicitly attend to most of this. We could do nothing if action were guided only by attention.
Furthermore, it isn't enough for these strands to be known individually. In being implicit they cross, which they must do if we are to drive properly. It wouldn't be enough to know that sharp metal can blow out tires, and separately the height of the car above the road. They have to be crossing to know whether it's safer to straddle the piece of metal between the wheels or to go
onto the shoulder at this speed.
A computer program would say something like “up to such and such a size straddle the piece of metal; over that number go to the right shoulder.” But this kind of “program” is implicit between all the myriad strands and in all kinds of respects and numbers. “Crossing” is somewhat like simultaneous “programs” in all directions and is also an entirely new process with an entirely
new result.
Obviously we are not unconscious of all this. We could not drive if we were. The implicit is an implicit consciousness. Its vast content functions implicitly.
You might relate better to merleau-Ponty’s notion of the unconscious, as related by Thomas Fuchs:
“From the point of view of a phenomenology of the lived body, the un-conscious is not an intrapsychic reality residing in the depths "below consciousness". Rather, it surrounds and permeates conscious life, just as in picture puzzles the figure hidden in the background surrounds the foreground, and just as the lived body conceals itself while functioning. It is an unconscious which is not located in the vertical dimension of the psyche but rather in the horizontal dimension of lived space, most of all lodging in the intercorporeality of dealings with others, as the hidden reverse side of day-to-day living. It is an unconscious which is not to be found inside the individual but in his relationships to others.
Unconscious fixations are like certain restrictions in a person's space of potentialities produced by an implicit but ever-present past which declines to take part in the continuing progress of life. Their traces, however, are not hidden in an inner psychic world but manifest themselves rather as "blind spots", "empty spaces" or curvatures in the lived space: in the "slips" in speech and action; in the relationship patterns into which a person repeatedly blunders, in the actions which are avoided without being aware of it; in the spaces which are not entered, the opportunities offered by life which one does not take, and
does. or even dare to see.
The unconscious is thus absence in presence, the unperceived in the perceived (Merleau-Ponty 1986, 308f.). Like a figure blanks out the background from which it stands out, consciousness, perception and language conceal the reverse side of the unconscious, of the unper-ceived and of silence which are always bound up with them. This reverse side, however, does not remain fully concealed but expresses itself in reversals, chiasmatic entanglements, in an ambiguity of con-sciousness: One does not know something and does not want to know it; one does not see something and does not want to see it - in other words, one looks past it intentionally-unintentionally. Consciousness is not fully transparent to itself because it hides itself from itself.”
A lot of that I like.
:up:
Yes - but only included as a rather obvious throw-away line. It is no great surprise !
Quoting Amity
I was thinking of our selves as we try to express ourselves/thoughts externally here (as TPF participant) compared to elsewhere (pick any socio-cultural role) and other dimensions of self-concept such as the physical, temperament, moral attitudes and intellect. How they interact...as we interact.
Some share more of of their selves and life history than others. Judgements are made accordingly and sometimes wrong assumptions made. This can affect our patience, tolerance and ability to give another person time to explore further, in their own way. Or to engage fruitfully with others who seem to be the direct opposite of ourselves - we have blind spots and a tendency to dismiss without really listening to points being made. This can lead to misunderstandings or misrepresentations which hang around like a nasty smell, if the other person feels there is no will to understand and so doesn't clarify further. And so on...
I thought this was pertinent:
Quoting Tom Storm
Asking questions of ourselves and others. Being aware of our assumptions or judgements...
How limited and blinkered we sometimes are...especially if we feel under threat.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Of course it is...how could it be otherwise ?
There's a small bit in the article comparing the cultures of East Asia and America.
Also, the dimensions of time and development - included are exercises and questionnaires for all age groups to explore self-concept.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think that has become clear to anyone reading your posts. Most recently when the 'reputation system' was reintroduced.
What does it mean to 'do badly here' and why would that affect self-esteem so much ?
What power do you give TPF and its members to adversely affect you ?
I agree that it can and does have an impact. Both positive and negative.
Sometimes...often I need to take a break.
However, I am not sure that, in my case, it is about being 'validated as a human being'.
It is only a small part of my life - but an important one and I would miss it if it disappeared.
Just like that...
Take care. Stay well.
:sparkle:
I think that your post is interesting because while we are talking about embodied selves in life, as we interact on this site we project ourselves in a disembodied way. It is true that some people disclose more than others and, personally, I feel that to disclose a certain amount gives the interaction gives some kind of human touch.
With regard to how I wrote about the idea of fearing doing 'badly' on the site, I will admit that this connects to my own fears of failure and rejection. When any of us come to the forum, we come with our own life history and underlying sense of self. I can trace my own feelings of potential rejection to when I was about 8 years old and after not seeing a group of friends for a few days, how they told me that they were forming a rock band, but that I could not be any part of it, and they kept taunting me over this. I felt so rejected, not that I thought that any of them, or myself, had any musical talents. But, the issue was about exclusion. That is an issue which I can share but I think that we all have weakspots.
A couple of months ago, I asked if ' reality is solid' and we can even ask if our own selves are solid? Hopefully, most of us are fairly solid, or stable, but I think that most of us have areas of weaknesses and strengths.
I think that your question, 'What power do you give TPF and its members to adversely affect you? ' is an interesting one. Personally, I think that it does affect me possibly more than it should, and that is probably because I spend a lot of time in my room by myself using it. It almost feels like reality television because it goes on night and day, with new threads popping up and heated, dramatic exchanges of ideas.
I also believe that you make an important point when you speak of how we listen to one another and have our own 'blindspots'. Even going beyond this forum, the idea of blindspots is not addressed within philosophy as it is in psychoanalysis, but, perhaps, it should be, because it may be an underlying aspect behind arguments and premises. It is interrelated to your point that on the forum, 'Judgements are made ... and sometimes wrong assumptions are made'. I definitely feel that often people write heated posts, quoting another, without exploring the issue fully with the other person. I think that there is a danger of conflating the other's position and the other person almost into a caricature. I think that there is more danger of doing this on a site like this in which we cannot see the other person, especially as the non verbal aspects of interaction are left out.
So, this is the reality of meeting as disembodied selves, and, of course, philosophy has traditionally often been in the form of books, but that does usually mean more direct human contact with others in the process of the creation of books. That may be less now when people can self publish online.
Quoting Amity
Thanks for time and interesting reply.
To clarify a little. My question about 'doing badly' was an attempt to understand the criteria you use as to what constitutes you 'failing' on TPF. I seem to remember you once talking of length of thread and how you hoped it would continue, even as you started another one. Also, moving a thread to the Lounge because it seemed to be less 'successful' or 'worthy' - ? due to lack of immediate response. Then back again. A noticeable and uncomfortable degree of anxiety creeping in ?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. Pretty addictive, huh.
What was that you were saying about 'balance'? :wink:
Sometimes, more than others, it is difficult to keep. That's fine as long as it doesn't adversely affect one's life, as you know.
And we keep our eye on the ball...so as to achieve...whatever...wellbeing...becoming a heathier and more knowledgeable whole rather than a complete asshole ? ( to use the American version).
I've heard it said that:
'Anyone from the UK who says asshole is an arsehole.' What's in a word, huh ?
I just think asshole trips off the tongue better - aesthetically pleasing, whot !
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. We can hold an impression of a poster after a single interaction. Just as when we meet someone in real life. How unfortunate when there can be so much more to a person and their thoughts.
In philosophy we are encouraged not to attack the person but the argument.
Ideally, this would be the case but I am not sure that this can always be avoided. Even if the intention is not to be hostile it is often perceived as such.
Especially when the positions people hold are a major part of who they are, sometimes after a lifetime
of experience and reflection. Other times, we are still growing and are happy to learn or be corrected.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well - before print there was the oral tradition.
Perhaps that meant improved interaction but at the cost of messages being interpreted differently.
We see and hear what we want...
I don't know enough about 'the process of the creation of books' to comment.
Is that something you want to do ?
Sharing your ideas with others online - getting feedback - is a form of validation and part of a publication process, I suppose.
Is that one of the reasons you write so many threads ?
Not just for exploration. Are you writing a book ?
Time for a break.
Unfortunately, I am not writing a book but I do love writing which is probably why I write so many threads. Perhaps, I will write one oneday. But, I think that I have probably created a lot of threads in a short time, and it is actually a lot of work trying to write so many replies. So, I probably do need a bit of a break, and, of course, I wish to get involved in others' threads as well.
Your reply is very interesting, in tracing the way in which the idea of self has in itself gone through many identity changes in itself. Yes, the ancient people often thought of it as the soul. In particular, Plato spoke of the daimon, in speaking of the idea of the soul in relation to the divine. How different the concept of the daimon is to most contemporary thinking about the self.
'Probably' ?
Hell, yeah :smile:
Just for a larf - I did a wee comparison.
Amity - 3yrs. 1692 posts. 12 threads.
Jack - 10 months. 3242 posts. I lost count but I think c. 63 threads.
Wow.
I know how much time and energy it takes to read, write and respond. One of the reasons I gave up starting a thread.
You will know best what is right for you; your brain, mind and body.
It's just doing it.
Not always easy to listen carefully and be kind to all aspects...but you know that already :sparkle:
I didn't realise just how many threads I had created, when the truth of the matter is I often struggle with writer's block. I probably need to slow down a bit and I certainly don't believe that sheer quantity of writing is important. Sometimes, thought before speaking or writing is important. I do still wish to write threads, but I see them as prompts for others to think about, rather than just as platforms for my own ideas.
On the subject of writing, Jack Heffron, in' The Writer's Idea Book', suggested that writing,
'is a means of carving order from chaos, of challenging beliefs and assumptions, of facing the world with eyes and heart wide open. Through writing, we declare a personal identity amid faceless anonymity'. So, it may be that the process of writing, including our expression of ideas on this site, is a central aspect of the realisation of the self.
I think that your point, 'Oneself is what each of us is, but yourself is not no one else can be,' is extremely important in our times. We have seen individualism but I think that we are now in a time in which the individual is viwed as being so insignificant. But, each of us is unique and needs to be valued, even in the digital, information age. There is the whole focus upon the needi to assert oneself, as many psychology experts emphasize, but, there is a contrasting ethos to current life, which seeks to dehumanise or crush the individual self, and I think that we have to be wary of this.
Yeah, wow. Interesting. This got me curious about my own "production" —
[quote=180 Proof on TPF]6 years
12 posts, 0 threads
in the last c2 years (logged off for +4 years)
4,592 posts, 0 threads
current totals
4,604 posts, 0 threads[/quote]
I think the pandemic quarantine + :fire: 2020 politics, etc account for 2/3rds of my posts, but I've no idea why I've not started any new threads.
I know that you have queried engaging with me on my many threads, but I think that our differing angles are so interesting. You are an highly valued member of the forum but write in response to others' threads. On the other hand, I write threads with complex questions, and I struggle my way through reading and thinking about replying. I often think how interesting it would be to see threads you might think of. But, I am not thinking that you should necessarily do so, because you are doing well anyway. I may need to slow down, but I love creating threads.
I just think that it shows how different we are as individuals. Fortunately, the forum allows for our individual expression of self and I can't help but laugh at how it would be if everyone created as many threads as I have done. The front page would be changing constantly, and it would really be a Tower of Babel of so many threads.
As I see it, there are opposing extremes. On the one hand, those who are intolerant of deviation from what they regard as the norm, and on the other, an obsessive need to assert one's individuality and uniqueness. The former has been with us forever, the latter is a relatively new and growing phenomenon, supported and fueled first by the self-esteem movement and now by social media where everyone can have a platform to talk about themselves in endless and nauseating detail.
One aspect which I wonder about this, is to what extent are people creating identities on social media because the scope for expressing in daily life is so restrictive. I think that have become locked into a mixture of institutions and individuals floundering socially. I probably would not have joined a forum at all if it had not been due to the pandemic and lockdowns.
As it is, I think that we are in an extremely upside down world, with a mixture of pros and cons and, the question is where is humanity going to end up, including our plights as individual selves struggling to find meaning and a place within it all? I think that the last 18 months, with the pandemic and lockdowns, have seen a speeding up of so many processes which had been beginning already. At this stage, it is hard to know what will happen and how life for any of us will be in, say, five years time.
I think it is not so much that daily life is so restrictive as that on social media there is little or no restrictions. Who you are can be whoever you want to appear to be. It is not constraints of society but the constraints of reality that can be overcome in part or in whole by the creation of a fictitious self.
It makes it sound as if the existentiali prospects of a disembodied fictitious self may make life in the real world seem so incredibly dull. I am actually wishing to get back to real life and having a life as an embodied self, but perhaps, the alternative reality of the internet and cyberspace will be too alluring. We will all sit alone, fixated on our devices with the ability to shapeshift a sense of self at the flick and tapping of digits.
I like the idea that the unconscious is a kind of implicit consciousness. We are probably more conscious than we care to admit. In the driving example, something pays attention to driving even when one believes he is not, and that something is the very same person who believes he is not paying attention to driving. How could we create antibodies if we weren’t in a sense conscious of the disease? And so on.
For a normal person, this would be the stupidest thing they've said on the forum. For you, maybe it makes the top 20.
Why is it stupid?
I can accept what you are saying and we are indeed so different. Obviously, our philosophies are connected to our basic sense of self, but it does possibly show how our own psychologies come into play in our thinking. Each of us comes with a subjective life, and this is involved and evolves during our engagement with others, as well as our being the starting point for the development of our construction of philosophies about everything in life. We cannot really escape the self while we are alive.
"Objectivity is the view from nowhere" Thomas Nagel.
A unified perception is a cluster of different things like shapes, molecules and colours that become united to the perceiver as an object.
Reality would be just confused mess of random incoherent experiences or unperceived interactions without united perception.
An illusion requires a self to be subject to the illusion. Consciousness and and self denying positions just hold back the study of phenomena usually for ideological reasons. Other than the claims that consciousness and self are illusory there are the tactics of mischaracterising the phenomena and semantic games to also stunt the progress of investigation.
This sounds intuitively correct, like the Earth being flat, but it has logical problems.
Any sort of self concept must arise as a product of understanding, where understanding is a body of integrated information . So a "self" comes after the fact, once a body of information is already established, so is not a primal entity. It is an emergent psychological entity in evolutionary psychology:
The Symbolic Self in Evolutionary Context
Abstract:
" Our central thesis in this article is that the symbolic self
is an adaptation. That is, we argue that the symbolic self is a
broad-based capacity that was selected and distributed in the
human population because of its high adaptive significance."
The self is so embedded in the psychology of modern humanity. The idea that it is a self that integrates information, and thus has thoughts is central to modern thought - "I think therefore I am" - But the "I" is an evolutionary adaptation. At some point in our evolution it did not exist, but we had thoughts just the same.
If self awareness is an emergent aspect of consciousness, then so too must be a self concept.
— Xtrix
There’s nothing to be convinced of— it’s a simple fact.
— Xtrix
:100: :up:[/quote]
Quoting Joshs
Quoting NOS4A2
It is curious how we are able to accept that information self organizes everywhere else but in the human brain. :chin: though neuroplasticity tells us exactly this.
See my post above.
Self is not a concept though.
The concept of self is a concept but that goes for everything. Everything can be described in conceptual terms.
We have experiences and try and conceptualise them but the experience require a self. We can reach this conclusion after starting to experience and seeing its necessity.
Phrases like "Self concept" and "Sense of self" beg the question. they already assume what they claim. I describe self as an experience.
However my argument was about how to have a coherent unified perception which must be had in front of an observer. That is not an intuition it is a logical necessity. If 5 people saw different parts of an object they may not be able to identify that object without communicating with each other. Information is integrated in front of the perceiver/thinker. Self is like pain though it is entirely first person and direct knowledge of it is had.
The answer is you. It is self knowledge. Among the things you know is your thoughts, dreams feelings, how hot you feel, how cold you feel, your pains etc. The idea you have equal knowledge of someone else is implausible.
Harold Shipman was one of histories most prolific serial killers. His wife slept next to him in the bed for years without knowing his murderous secrets. He was apparently the only person who knew about his rampage. This private knowledge doesn't make sense without a self.
If something is truly unconscious no one knows about it and it is unavailable to consciousness and nothing can be said about. Unconscious knowledge doesn't make sense.
It is generally accepted that what makes human consciousness distinct from lesser forms of consciousness is self awareness. At some stage we evolved from this lesser form to a "self" aware form.
Skim the paper it is quite interesting. It is a mind bender for sure!
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Consciousness is information integration. Information integrates on its own everywhere.
I am glad you seem to be taking some time out, so please DO NOT REPLY to this, it isn't necessary.
Even one of the silly emoticons will do, if you want :smile:
Re: failure and fear.
I've added something to the 'Stuff' thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/569722
You can also see the time and development aspects of the self, as we adapt to life changes in the film.
Philosophy is out there and everywhere. TPF is just a small drop in the ocean.
Best wishes.
Thanks for your entry, and I am just letting you and others know that I am really taking a bit of time out because my mum is in hospital. However, I can't go to visit her daily due to Covid_19 restrictions. So, I am logging onto the site but will probably have much less participation for a while. But, I am continuing to read the replies on the threads and I am glad that the thread is still going for any people who are still interested.
Sorry to hear about this difficult time for you and your Mum.
It is good that you are able to be near and to show that you care, even if visits are limited.
This kind of reality hits home and can put things into perspective.
A time to reflect on who and what is important.
Threads can go to hell and back.
But sometimes - this place can be a welcome distraction.
Do what feels right for you.
Time to be kind to your body and mind. Find the balance. All the better to help your Mum and any others.
Best wishes :sparkle:
Thanks, and life can be so difficult at times, throwing us into all kinds of philosophy conundrums. I plan to have some interaction on this site, even while my mother is ill and in hospital, although it is lower on my priorities.
I do believe though, that the harshest lessons in life are probably the ones which give us the most scope for learning. I am not sure that life is meant to be easy at all, aside from any particular viewpoint which we may choose to adopt, to make sense of it all. But, I realise that it is a matter of perspective entirely and how the abstract entity known as the self is present as an essential factor in any such interpretation of life experience. This also is related to how we view the importance of self in relation to any larger cosmic order.
As regards to the self, I also believe that we need a certain amount of sense of humour and need to try not to take our own selves too seriously. My own funniest dream , a couple of weeks ago, was one in which I saw all my own threads on this site, lying as long pieces of curled up pieces of paper on the floor, next to my bed, almost like scrolls.