The nature of the Self, and the boundaries of the individual.
What is the nature of the Self and what are its boundaries, within the constraints of this mortal existence and leaving aside for the moment questions of the afterlife?
Some possible questions to consider for starters. Or feel free to pose your own.
What is the individual human self? Where does it begin and end, if it ends? What is the boundary line between self and not-self? Is that boundary line the body, or one's personal space or clothing, or one's possesions and home, or one's family, or one's thoughts? Or are self boundaries a relative concept? Is the self like a unchanging pearl deep within like Aristotle and the Hindu belief of Atman says? If so, how would this be possible to know or prove? Or is it, as far as we can tell, an accumulation or heaps of energies and tendencies, like Hume and the Buddhist concept of annatta say? Are the body, mind, spirit possesions of a "Self", or parts of a whole which may be called a self? How does a human relate to the self within? Is it organic, growing, and alive? How do different selves relate and connect on the deepest imaginable levels? Are different selves absolutely separate selves? Is there some level of radical connection or even interconnected being? Is the self completely bound by time and space? Is the self limited and bound by body and mind? Is the mind or spirit a bridge beyond the self? Any quotes from philosophers or other writers (and your response) to share about this topic that may shed some light?
Some possible questions to consider for starters. Or feel free to pose your own.
What is the individual human self? Where does it begin and end, if it ends? What is the boundary line between self and not-self? Is that boundary line the body, or one's personal space or clothing, or one's possesions and home, or one's family, or one's thoughts? Or are self boundaries a relative concept? Is the self like a unchanging pearl deep within like Aristotle and the Hindu belief of Atman says? If so, how would this be possible to know or prove? Or is it, as far as we can tell, an accumulation or heaps of energies and tendencies, like Hume and the Buddhist concept of annatta say? Are the body, mind, spirit possesions of a "Self", or parts of a whole which may be called a self? How does a human relate to the self within? Is it organic, growing, and alive? How do different selves relate and connect on the deepest imaginable levels? Are different selves absolutely separate selves? Is there some level of radical connection or even interconnected being? Is the self completely bound by time and space? Is the self limited and bound by body and mind? Is the mind or spirit a bridge beyond the self? Any quotes from philosophers or other writers (and your response) to share about this topic that may shed some light?
Comments (54)
If you were to ask, well what are among objects of perception, the easy answer is 'look around you'. Everything you see is an object of perception. But the self is never that, for the obvious yet difficult reason that the self is the subject of experience.
'Anatta' is not a concept, but an observation along similar lines - all objects, experience, thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and so on, are not self (an-?tman). So theorising about what 'that' is, is already going in the wrong direction, because there is no 'it' or 'that'. Knowing that this is something you can't know is the correct understanding.
Reminds me of this:
Cassius:
Then, Brutus, I have much mistook your passion;
By means whereof this breast of mine hath buried
Thoughts of great value, worthy cogitations.
Tell me, good Brutus, can you see your face?
Brutus:
No, Cassius; for the eye sees not itself,
But by reflection, by some other things.
Meow!
GREG
* There's a mental "sense of self"--your conscious "I"/"Me" phenomena
* There's "self" with a connotation of your entire body--all of the parts that "belong to you," your hair, your foot, etc.
The ontological boundaries of the former are the brain phenomena that amount to those particular "I"/"me" mental phenomena.
The ontological boundaries of the latter is the surface of your body, with parts that you lose--and you're always losing parts, including hair, skin cells, etc. generally being no longer considered part of your self unless it's a "significant" part/something we put a lot of importance on, such as your limbs, your organs, etc. So there's some fuzziness there for sure.
In terms of epistemic boundaries, that's of course fuzzier and it's subjective; it's simply a matter of how the person in question thinks about their mental self or what, if anything, constitutes their body.
There must be some moment when a baby looking into a mirror understands that what it sees is itself.
I'd also say that the mental sense of self is not among the objects of perception, because the very concept of perception is that of receiving and processing external (to one's mind) information. Selves are not external. We do not perceive any mental content--we also do not perceive emotions, ideas, desires, etc.
We can, of course, perceive parts of our body. At least if we've not had too much to drink.
Thank you very much for your reply. And happy holidays to all. (L)
What you wrote brings to mind the Zen master's response of "Who is it that is asking this question?" Which (as i take it in my limited understanding) seems to be provoking/encouraging a deeper interior examination from the questioner rather than looking for a specific answer. In fact, any answer that was in the slightest way a cliche or stock response (no matter how elaborate) was apt to provoke a smack on the noggin from the teacher. Which probably got the students attention quickly. But that was a different place and time. The point still stands however, and encourages us to keep looking.
So if i'm understanding what you wrote, the self is the "unseen seer". "Self" meaning the deepest level of one's being, or perhaps pure consciousness? Or is that a mistaken understanding of your words?
I agree with your description of "anatta". I merely called it a "concept" in the sense that nearly anything that can possibly be thought of or discussed can be called a concept. That would apply to the self as well, one would imagine.
As for theorizing and going in the wrong direction... Well, of course! Can't argue with that. Silence is the master of talking, and stillness is the foundation of movement. If one is talking about a particular tree, for example, one can't say everything about it all at once. And even a blue-ribbon panel of scientists, poets, philosophers, and artists could not totally define that one tree. And whatever they produced would be a mere reflection (however brilliant, accurate, or inspiring) and not be the tree itself. Some forums allow the user to have a signature quote in their posts. There doesn't seem to be that option here in this forum, afaik. If i could, I'd put this quote from the Tao te Ching as a sort of disclaimer to what i said: "The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named is not the eternal name". In other words, take everything with a big grain of salt! Your (s)mileage may vary. :)
Quoting Wayfarer
Thanks for your reply. A mug of Shakespeare (shakes-beer?) helps one swallow the chewiest gristle of theory! :D
While watching the light at the end of the tunnel... you are aboard the oncoming train that is shining the light at the end of the tunnel...
:o
Wayfarer's view that the self "is never an object of perception, nor amongst the objects of perception" seems true. I have no doubt that other selves exist, and I hope I am right that all the selves there are follow the same general pattern of being--else, how could we understand each other?
There are certain kinds of selves that have invisible tentacles extending in all directions and one never knows when one might step on one and be blasted. These selves take up a lot of room. The steppes of Russia are not sufficient for some. And some selves find small sleeping rooms spacious enough.
Or, "The light you see at the end of the tunnel is an express train coming at you very fast."
Thanks for the reply. Happy holidays!
Yes, definitely. It is very helpful (and perhaps critical) in discussions about the self to keep in mind the two aspects of self: the "conscious witness self" and the "everything (including the kitchen sink) self". Humor aside, the "everything self" would include all physical attributes, mental activity, and any experiences one has had. Which also would, i think, include all of one's past selves. Like Dickens' Scrooge viewing his past self and his interactions with others. The past might be dead, but it is not gone. (Or is it gone, but not dead? Or dead, but still moving? Insert zombie joke here). Wow, now that i think about it, A Christmas Carol is quite a metaphysical work of fiction. Probably why it has endured so long.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Right.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Correct, but calling it 'pure anything' is speculation. Again it is the mind trying to grasp itself. The right way is to know that we don't know - like the Socratic attitude. That has to be deeply understood and practiced.
Question: has the belief in a completely separate Self become the dominant paradigm in our culture? Is it now the foundation of practically all current societal systems (government, industry and commerce, education, etc.)?
By "completely separate self" i mean that people are completely isolated at their core from other people and other things. People and things may interrelate, but are always apart and separate in a radical way. For example, five marbles in a bowl are related but completely separate. By contrast, the five fingers of a hand have some separation, but also some commonality.
(Some ideal/optimistic/possibly Utopian foundations would be things like democracy, freedom, equality, peace, love, family, abundance, truth, beauty, divine worship, goodness, etc. The more cynical/pessimistic/pragmatist view is that money, gold, power, natural resources, military might, sexual conquest, fame etc. make the world go round.)
The question here is whether the belief in the separate self now transcends and underlies all of those things?
If no, what is the underlying (perhaps hidden) foundational belief of our current culture? Is it a combination of factors, and is it relative to the particular place? What happens to an person when they believe they are completely isolated?
If yes (the separate Self belief is foundational), is that a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in between?
If it is seen as a positive, how so? Is it that our culture as a whole has caught up to the realities of science, and with the technological tools now available, is finally shaking off the centuries of superstitions that inhibited the full flowering of the individual?
If it seen as at least potentially negative, how so? Is the embracing of the separate self ideal ironically at odds with individual rights, in the long run?
There was an intriguing and controversial book written by Harold Bloom, Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human which, as the title implies, says that Shakespeare literally invented the idea of the human that the West now assumes as fundamental. Opinion is divided as to whether Bloom succeeds in establishing his thesis, but I think the underlying notion, that the centrality 'human person' is an historically recent development and something unique to the modern West, is certainly a valuable insight.
There's another influential stream of thought along these lines, which is about how Augustine created the idea of the 'inner self', as many of his tremendously influential works were deeply philosophical that were set in the first person, as a kind of dialogue between the author and God (see Augustine's Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist, Phillip Cary. Also worthy of note is Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity and also Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life, and Death, Richard Sorabji.)
'Liberal individualism' can be contrasted with the more 'corporatist' mentality of Asia, where 'the nail that sticks it to be hammered down'. Indeed in many or even all traditional social orders, the individual is subordinated to the family, clan, tribe, or other social group, from which he/she derives an identity.
I think individualism ought to be valued and respected - after all, the People's Republic of China is hardly a beacon of individual freedom - but at the same time, I think philosophy has to encourage the individual to find a source of values beyond the self. The Platonic concept of 'the true and the good' and the distinction between mere opinion and true knowledge have been lost, and as a consequence, the criterion for what constitutes a moral choice often amounts to simply personal preference, 'what I like'. That has the dangerous consequence of personal preferences becoming the basis of political movements, and the subordination of ethics to mere fashion. Meanwhile, science assumes the role of 'umpire of truth' even though it methodically excludes values as such. You see many of the confusions arising from these at work on a large scale nowadays.
I think this is because the Western conception of the human person was ultimately grounded in Greek and Judeo-Christian vision of human nature which materialism and secular philosophies have tended to undermine.
Thanks very much for your reply and insights. I will check out those books. I had the one on Shakespeare, but may have donated it to clear space! Recovering bookaholic here. Was reading Thomas Metzinger's very interesting The Ego Tunnel http://polatulet.narod.ru/dvc/tmet/the_ego_tunnel.html
I'm being completely hypothetical on whether the hyper-individualism has reached a pathological stage, or is rapidly approaching one. It is not that people are any better or worse than at others times in history, though im not sure how one would begin to measure that. It seems as though countless forces are trying to manipulate, divide, and conquer us. A scared and unhappy consumer is prolific consumer. People buy more when they are feeling unwell, whether physically or psychologically. All those things you learned in school about advertising and marketing manipulations are now taken to the n'th degree. There are some devious tricks we probably don't even know about. We are bereft of a tribe so we look for a sports team, political party, or other brand to find a semblance of a community.
You mentioned China and freedom. We in the West probably picture faceless and countless drones milling about doing their boring routines, never feeling highs or lows or much of anything. But even this image is most likely derived from advertising and movies. Nonetheless, the West would not likely adapt well to such a lifestyle. There has to be a happy medium between that blandness and everyone in their own wi-fi bubble cell, reaching out to others mostly when there is a chance that it could go viral.
Actually I had in mind more the PRC government's routine and complete disregard for basic human rights and Tibetan autonomy, among other things. And, yes, must get around to reading Metzinger (and Antonio Damasio).
There are quite a lot of Chinese people in the UK these days. They seem pretty cheerful and self-assured to me. Maybe they feel history is on their side :)
:D Probably! I was picturing old cold war propaganda about communist countries how everything was bland, boring, and state-approved. With a constant lack of toilet paper. While in the West it was one never-ending party for everybody with MTV, beer, and supermodels of course!
This subject always perplexes me. I get the gist of Freud's system of Id, Ego, and Super-ego. If i recall correctly from my scant reading most of the problems Freud described came from the clash of the Ego with the Id and Super-ego. But of course, there are other definitions of "ego" other than his. What is your definition? When is the ego good and when is it bad? Or is it always the same? Can it be too big or too small? Where does it fit in with the rest of our mind? And maybe most importantly, do we control it, or does it control us?
To consider self-esteem, one could first consider the very concept of "self".
Which brings to mind this quote from Dogen: “To study enlightenment is to study the self; to study the self is to forget the self; to forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the body and mind of others drop away. No trace of realization remains and this no trace continues endlessly.”
This may seem all well and good for Zen masters or practicing Buddhists or maybe magickal wizards, but what practical use is that in real life? (one could ask). To continue the thoughts i wrote in the first response in this thread, any steps to re-balance the ego (that which is one's sense of self) will more than likely yield positive results. It is not an all-or-nothing affair where one is trying to lose, or worse yet "kill", the ego. Some gentle and gradual reducing may help, though. The ego can become inadvertently enlarged, much like our bodies or the pile of our possessions can. There seems to be something in the human mind that likes to grab and hold onto things to fill the void. This can be natural and healthy, like eating when hungry. But it quickly can go to extremes, that much seems self-evident. At least it relates to my experiences both past and present in attempting to find the balance points. When applied to the body, it can lead to a toxic obesity and ill health. With possessions, it may manifest as extreme hoarding.
"A ping pong ball on the ocean"...
But when it is the self itself trying to hyper-expand to fill the void and deal with a sense of emptiness, it is harder to deal with because it is not visible. Not visible, but existent nonetheless. A feeling of disconnection and isolation from other humans and the rest of the world is perhaps one of the most common feelings. (There have been several recent threads concerning this isolation and feeling of solipsism such as: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/776/the-isolation-of-mind/p1 ). When one feels as separate, small and powerless as a ping pong ball floating on the ocean, it seems like we are battered about at the mercy of the wind and waves. The first inclination might be to do something like the expression "go big or go home". But if one completely identifies with the Isolation, and believes that they are totally separate from everything else, "going big" might just make the situation worse. Instead of being a "ping pong ball self" floating on the ocean, there is a "beach ball self" floating on the waves.
Well, the "beach ball self" is definitely bigger. Sometimes in certain circumstances bigger is better, but sometimes not. The reflexive habit to expand our identity while keeping the walls of that identity air-tight can lead to a ballooning effect. The more air pumped into a balloon, the larger it becomes. But the air pressure is also increased which may lead to a sense of tightening constriction. The larger an inflated balloon becomes, the thinner its skin is. This makes it more vulnerable to pinpricks and the like. A beach ball on the ocean may have lots of room to bob about. But imagine a room filled with many beach balls, all inflated to the max. They are "feeling" (so to speak) internally pressured from the air, and externally pressured from all the other beach balls pushing against their thin vulnerable surfaces. One can then imagine the sorts of dynamics and conflicts arising from this hypothetical situation. This describes in a very general way many of the interactions around us, imho.
Those who say that this situation is the way things are and is unavoidable, and it boils down to "survival of the fittest" are probably concerned with becoming the largest beach ball on the block, while trying to deflate their competition.
And there are those who know this dynamic exists, but are looking for other ways of existing. Those that look long enough might find something.
Thanks for your consideration of these ideas. Hope they are as helpful to read as they were for me to write. Any feedback is welcome.
Not sure about the phrasing mortal existence, ‘tis somewhat Highlanderish what with our mortal sins n’all, but nevertheless I tend to view the idea of Self and individual exclusivity as a social construct, an implicit function that coordinates as part of a historical rearrangement of the social contract in our contemporary era that compels compliance in a more sophisticated manner.
The Hobbesian fear of punishment has transformed from an authority to a social form of punishment; by developing a universal conception of an ‘individual’ deviation from mass opinion is minimised since what the bourgeoisie require is the power to control in order to maintain sustainable capital. Under the conditions where people assume they are making their own decisions, disciplinary conditions and thus the threat of being subordinated is no longer applicable as the slave ‘wants’ to be the slave, preventing the possible outbreak of any Nietzschean ressentiment. Should a mind become rehabilitated enough to desire escape – thus forming the first instance of authenticity [see Heidegger] which is basically the authentic Self or where one becomes conscious of freewill – their entire identity is at risk due to the entrenched and powerful social conditions that has normalised its coercive techniques to impose conformity. That is, they forfeit their true nature for the herd.
I therefore agree that there exists an ‘individual’ where one can articulate an independent discourse vis-à-vis a conscious morality and whilst we are entirely social, a Being in Time, we nevertheless contain the capacity – consciousness itself – and the free-will to evolve to ‘existentiality’. What is unfortunate is that the objects available to us to be used as instruments to develop this capacity for ‘individual’ articulation or morality has become absorbed – due to capitalism – to hinder this possibility as people themselves have been turned into objects.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful reply. And welcome to TPF! :)
Quoting TimeLine
I was just trying to focus on our current existence, as opposed to any possible afterlife. Probably was not critical that i made that distinction though.
Quoting TimeLine
Well said, and I generally agree. I would add if i may that those in control of others (bourgeoisie, to use your term) are quite clever in their near-sighted greed, and do not wish to have a united mass of people to deal with. Conformity without cohesion is what I imagine they desire in their "subjects". (I cringe slightly at the term "herd" when used to describe conformity, because of the sub-human connotation of that word. Still it is not as bad as the word "sheeple", which is a tad smug, imho.) Based on the general modus operandi of those wishing to impose their will on the populace, the strategy of "divide and conquer through isolationism" seems to be most effective. We are told and sold how individual, separate, unique, amazing, and stunning (this seems to be a popular phrase, along with "jaw-dropping") we are at our core. We just need a little help (in the form of whatever it is they are selling, be it product or idea) to reach fully blossomed self-hood, so we can proceed to market our identities and inspire others to do the same. Individualism, once a noble goal of mature psychological growth, has been turned against us and used as a lever to separate and control. And the more competitive and ambitious a person is, the harder it may be to resist. The bloody circus of modern UFC "gladiators" has entered our blood and minds, it seems. If you can kick everyone's ass, then you will be dominant and get all the goodies. (The promoters would probably say that they didn't write "the law of the jungle". They just take it to absurd extremes for our amusement.)
To be clear, i am definitely NOT advocating any loss of individual rights, personal abilities, or self-improvement. Those are wonderful things worth holding onto, of course. I am proposing that we in modern Western civilization, have most likely never experienced living in a truly functioning community. Thus, even the word "community" seems quaint, if not naive and vaguely utopian. To move in the direction of some type of unity and cohesion, but of our own free choosing -unmanipulated by others-
may be what we unconsciously hunger for.
(Easier said than done, of course. Sorry for getting on the soap box! ) :)
Ahh this old Nietzschean has also joined us here :P
It depends on your view as to whether a community is a collection of individuals or whether it is subject to the sum of its own parts, where as you suggest there is a subsistence of an un-manipulated ‘utopian’ society that enables the group to mirror justice without being subject to time? Can this cohesive homogeneity be sustained without an evolutionary dynamic and radical unpredictability affecting the flux and dynamics of continuity and discontinuity as though the second law of thermodynamics is merely a misnomer? The heterogeneity of society cannot be separated into a continuous picture and this radical unpredictability is the very impediment of a perfect social design - hence Nazism - and any impediment to something successful requires its elimination. The impediment itself is the ‘individual’ since consciousness leads to questions, free will invites an authentic awareness and an proper ego, intuition takes us out of the process of experience and pushes us beyond the normal constraints of reality that we become more attuned to what really is. For instance, you could have a perfect life, a home, loving family, beautiful wife so then why would you feel like something is wrong? These socially determined and habituated positions trap one into a mental prison and the dependence leads us to reject our own consciousness – that is our own free will – in order to survive the impending anxiety. Thus the reason why we desire the community in the first place is to avoid our true nature (what would humanity look like if consciousness did not exist?) and this is the tragedy and our unique position in nature.
I do, however, agree that there exists a possibility to reach an authentic unity but only when the individual has transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness and only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together. Human rights and liberal democracy is as close as we could get to this but even so the traps of capitalism and globalisation far outweigh the good and to denote those who dismiss all that is wrong in this world deserve the cringeworthy title of being a part of the 'herd'.
If you have all that and still feel that something is missing, then something is indeed missing - it is your own head and reason ;)
Ah, would that be so even if your wife prostitutes herself but she is beautiful or your family - in the Kafka 'Metamorphosis' sense - only "love" you for things other than who you really are? A house is just an object without genuine love. Of course, I am forced to make spatial concessions to aid your comprehension on the phenomenology but even so you voice the very ignorance and inadvertently exemplify my point.
I missed you.
Then I certainly don't have a "perfect life" nor a "beautiful wife", for physical beauty would not be sufficient to make her a beautiful wife.
Quoting TimeLine
Well I'm not sure about this. Say my family loves me because of my money-making ability. Is that not part of me as well? What the trouble would be in that case is simply a problem of their lack of virtue - lack of loyalty to be more specific. If, for some reason, I can no longer make money - they leave me or no longer love me. So the issue isn't that they shouldn't like my money-making ability (for that is also part of who I am) - but rather that I desire them to be virtuous. It's their lack of character that I dislike, not the fact that they like me for a variety of reasons including my money-making ability.
If happiness is merely an externalisation or a quantitative multiplicity that represents spatial influences and that quantifies the very fibre of our existence, then what is real or authentic? You say you would not have a perfect life or a beautiful wife because you desire virtue and it is virtue that is beautiful, but I have witnessed virtue mocked and the immoral praised as long as this immoral adequately fits within the social requisites. Virtue is a form in that the concept itself has transcended to a qualitative multiplicity where experience is shaped away from the socially habituated toward the realm of moral consciousness and where temporality is no longer treated spatially. Moral consciousness and not the master-slave morality is what makes us human rather than objects.
I agree. Life is a mixture of pragmatism and love. A family without love is at best an army - that is if it hasn't also lost the other pillar holding them together, virtue. However, a loving family without pragmatism (and discipline) is like a ship with a hole in the bottom. For lack of better words, a family thrives when the "male" - "female" tension is maintained, and there exists mutual respect between them (and this respect is born of the understanding of the family's dynamics). Love is needed - but love cannot reach the point of annihilating discipline. Discipline is also needed - but it cannot reach the point of extinguishing the flame of love. Most houses crumble because the partners don't adequately maintain this tension, and each seeks to impose their will over the other - for example one partner imposes their discipline to the point that family life becomes like an empty and lonely desert, held together only by mutual hopes and fears. Or one partner imposes their love to the point that the family loses direction, and becomes a victim to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune :P
Quoting TimeLine
I have as well, but so what? I witness virtue mocked more frequently than I hear it praised in fact. Dogs will go on barking, and those lacking character will go on mocking virtue, and those foolish will go on cutting the very branch on which they're sitting. But I don't want to be like any of them - for the one thing that is impossible to lose unless you surrender it is dignity. Society - modern society at least - has a corrosive effect on virtue due to the mechanisms of peer pressure that it employs almost in its every move.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree.
Quoting TimeLine
Happiness in and by itself (without virtue) is unstable - it quickly degrades into unhappiness. Now virtue isn't a guarantee for happiness today or tomorrow - it's only a guarantee for happiness in the very long run (which may be even longer than your own life). But happiness is a certain outcome of virtue - regardless of how far into the future it lies. Whereas happiness without virtue is always uncertain and can never satisfy our need for perfect happiness.
The real Socratic irony is that the virtuous man or woman also ends up as the happiest man or woman, and inevitably does so. The real point I was making is that the person who does actually have the perfect life - but is still somehow unhappy, that person has an internal problem, a problem of virtue. It's useless that all external conditions have aligned (and thus happiness is really present), for he lacks virtue and cannot enjoy it. Instead, he will ruin that perfect happiness - he will start getting drunk, gambling away his money, cheating on his wife, abandoning his family, etc. At that point, he is the source of his own undoing.
Well I think I missed you too :P There's few on these boards like you with insight to talk to about really significant matters (I love that your philosophy is always practical and practically oriented), if you can believe it, I'm busy here quibbling about matters such as whether 2 is a subset of 1 >:O
Thanks for your reply. I would say a community is both a collection of individuals AND a whole greater than the sum of its parts, like light can be described as both a particule and a wave. But as the saying goes, five severed fingers do not make a hand. Not sure though that I quite grasped the rest of what you were saying in this quote. I don't want to assume. Can you rephrase it or dumb it down a shade? (as Homer Simpson says).
Quoting TimeLine
Sorry if I'm taking this sentence out of context, but this rather large claim perhaps needs more explaining before i can begin to accept it. Sure, some hardy people can live in the woods, off the grid and alone, and be quite happy. That is quite admirable. Our basic survival skills "in the wild/nature" have gotten flabby, at least for most of us. But humans don't come right out of the womb ready to run, swim, and hunt like some other animals. Some clan/tribe/community is needed, as well for the transmission of knowledge. I think you would agree with that, at the least.
Quoting TimeLine
Ok, it is good to hear that you think there is a possibility for unity. I'm not being sarcastic either. Sometimes i wonder if even a "disagreeable" or "minor quarreling" unity is even possible. Maybe what we see now is all that will ever be, except for the possibility of getting much worse. It is entirely possible, maybe even probable. Daniel Quinn in his books (Ishmael, etc.) brings up the example of Native American Indian tribes which were VERY territorial and would often kill trespassers on their land without question. Quinn said this is not a problem despite its rather bloody aspects, and i would agree. It held the tribes together, and was an expression of the laws of nature. The laws of nature being that which is observed to foster and continue life, both within and among the species. But that may be a little off the topic, as interesting as i may find it. But the point he makes is that a species that goes against the laws of nature might exist for a time, but even a thousand years is an evolutionally short amount of time. And to go against nature is (to borrow Agustino's phrase) to saw off the branch they are sitting on. Individuals are needed to devise alternate ideas, but without the support and action of the majority/collective, even the brightest ideas will wither on the vine.
Thank you all very much for reading this and your input. :)
This is the same point I've made before that there is a tension between the individual and society (or the family) which has to be maintained for the well-being of both.
However, it seems to me that TimeLine is fundamentally right that the individual must have "transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness and only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together" - otherwise it becomes impossible to maintain this underlying tension. Morality cannot be a matter that the collective decides on - morality always is and must always be the relationship of an individual with reality, and the collective cannot be an individual. So whatever the collective decides on, it will be at best a replica of authentic morality and a replica is dead. Consider Kierkegaard:
Or consider St. Augustine:
Furthermore, an individual is better off extricating himself or herself from an immoral society, even if this means death, as illustrated by the examples of Socrates, Cicero, Jesus, Seneca, etc. For what use is being a well-integrated thief or criminal or choosing to live for a few more days, only to live in shame? So in this sense the individual is primary. The individual's heart is primary. The first step is always for the individual to free himself - as Nietzsche puts it in Zarathustra, the first stage is the man going up the mountain to be alone - apart from community. The going down is only a secondary movement. If the individual isn't free, it is of no use that he belong to any community whatsoever - just as it is of no use marrying an outwardly chaste woman whose heart secretly harbours evil.
Now, once the individual has "transcended to this existentiality and conscious awareness" he returns to society - why? Because all people thirst for community and love, especially those who are close to their own hearts. And what is the problem of the return? That the individual is now taken to be mad by the herd - thus the desire transforms into being "only amongst others of the same mental state whereby they exercise this freedom together" - Why? Because returning to the community, the individual finds he has no real freedom. Real freedom isn't merely being theoretically capable to undertake X or Y action - that's freedom only in a negative sense. The actions that the individual wants to undertake cannot be undertaken because he finds no people willing to collaborate. So freedom in community is useless unless we can "exercise this freedom" - then it becomes positive freedom. Hence the thirst for reforming society - at least if not possible at the macro level, then at least at the smaller levels - friends, family, etc.
And I agree with TimeLine about the attack on capitalism and globalism. The former is a sick system as it demands growth not for the purpose of fulfilling human need - but for the sake of growth itself. We don't produce more because we need more - we produce more for the sake of greater production. Greed. This brings with it consumerism - we need to consume more because we're producing more, otherwise what to do with all the increases in production? And globalism tears down the fabric of local communities, and increases the space between people - leading ultimately to a scenario where each person becomes an island unto themselves.
I disagree that "liberal democracy is as close as we could get to this" - although I appreciate the increase in compassion, benevolence and personal liberties, but there's an equally dramatic if not more significant fall in virtue (especially the hard virtues - honour, dignity, chastity, etc.) coupled with rising of hedonism/nihilism. I agree with Plato that democracy is the worst form of government besides tyranny. It levels everyone to the same level - the bottom level. We all tend to become equally bad.
Ah sorry old horse, I haven't been in a forum for a while. What I meant is that your proposition of a truly functioning community fails to consider time and evolutionary dynamics where we cannot separate heterogeneity as though the community could be a continuous picture, something that is only possible when we eliminate the 'individual'. This possibility of the community being continuously the same picture is what Nazism attempted to employ hence why it is dangerous. This is the thermodynamics of humanity, as it were, the entropy prohibits the reversal of the arrow of time or that systems are irreversable and that chaos increases by a perpetual motion that is unpredictable. Whenever we move to a direction of cohesiveness or equilibrium, individuality disintergrates because it is individual consciousness that is causally the root of our chaos - if you take away consciousness, we would have no language and thus be nothing but animals, but we would reach an equilibrium with nature. In a social setting, we become slaves or mindless drones.
In order to maintain individuality and form this true community, it requires consciousness of this consciousness as it were; if society is a collection of individuals, we need to ascertain what an 'individual' is first and thus it returns us back to my original argument, which is the reason why the initial conversation was about authenticity and an independent moral consciousness. We could reach this equilibrium with nature because we consciously choose to do so as we transcend our destructive unpredictability and return back to our state of nature as we become aware of ourselves and others.
Quoting 0 thru 9
No one is saying run off into the wilderness; I am not going to take off all my clothes and wander around the bush bare breasted for the rest of my life as even that defies our state of nature as we are "beings" in a world, but Aldous Huxley knows that those who have reached a state of existentiality or of an independent consciousness amongst a community of clones is impossible that we will be inevitably banished to live in isolation. As Augustino said, happiness is only possible when we lead a virtuous life that is only possible with an independent moral consciousness and this is best achieved in a reciprocal, communicative environment amongst people as we are in a spatial world and it is through society that we can transcend to become aware of our individuality.
Nature is a reminder of the finitude of our existence unlike the massive egotistical capitalist culture that prohibits any self-reflective contemplation and this consciousness of our finitude, of the unbelievable largeness of nothingness - I thought about that when I was young and it was shocking that the thought barely lasted - that we become aware of our own death, the futility etc that we become conscious of ourselves and our environment and place in the world. The sophistication of capitalism is quite frightening whereby these so-called 'individuals' in their expensive clothing and cosmetics are now taking selfies in the bush and marketing people to go back to nature and be natural - all artificially, almost as a trick that ascertaining what is authentic is becoming close to impossible. This is what needs to end.
Good on you for questioning and you have a calmness to you that is refreshing and reminds me of the balance I have developed and am committed to in my personal life. I just have to do this intellectually, haha.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Spot on, which is why we protest in our own way despite the collective that eventually I may pave the way for someone in the next generation who will be better than me who will pave the way and so on. A tree grows. Marx was incorrect when he purported an immediacy in this change through revolution, though with our current conditions and the impact we are having environmentally, it would seem that choice is becoming limited. I still refuse to give in and consistently push myself to understand my place in this world.
It is good to be back, almost symbolic as I overcome certain things one step at a time. As said by Schopenhauer, "I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.”
Quibbling is the fun bit >:)
(Y)
Quoting TimeLine
>:O
Capitalism is like the man who at night goes and throes stones breaking the windows of his neighbours' houses, and in the morning comes in to repair them :-O
Quoting TimeLine
Yes I agree. Capitalism doesn't want you to be virtuous because virtuous people don't need much so you can't sell to them. But those governed by fear, lust and the other vices - they are very easy to sell to so long as you present a product which can "solve" whatever problem you have artificially created in them. That is why capitalism is tied with democracy - it requires the levelling down that can only be achieved in a democracy. The evolution of say - morality - in the last 50 years is dictated solely by capitalism. People generally have whatever morality they do today, largely because this morality is the most conducive to commerce. For example - we admire diversity and globalisation only because their existence means more markets and more business. We are more benevolent and compassionate not because we are becoming better human beings ("We're no longer in the Middle Ages!") but because this sells. Being compassionate means we produce for people in Africa. We get money from governments in order to buy vaccines and the like, and so on.
We don't admire the hard virtues, which are disappearing - they mean less business.
So capitalism requires a democratisation of culture - that is to say a diverse culture where differences between good and bad, high and low are wiped out. The other tactic employed is blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality - if you have a fantasy today, you can't simply enjoy it as a fantasy, you have to make it into reality. In fact, people are no longer as capable of judging between what reality is, and what their fantasies are. In addition to this, there exists an army of experts to inform you on everything from what products to use on your hair, to how the economy has to be run, to who you should vote for, to what to do with your sex life and so forth. These experts don't actually share knowledge - most scientific studies out there, especially with regards to social trends - are probably false. I know this independently as I've worked in scientific research in engineering (note! - not a social science) - and even there it is easy to obtain whatever result you desire to obtain (this is useful in receiving more funding). This video explains this concept:
Now in my own opinion - I think the situation is much worse, especially in the social sciences than illustrated in this video. My hypothesis is that the rate at which false information grows is greater than the rate at which true information grows. And thus - while apparently we are having greater and greater access to information (or so democracy/capitalism wants to tell us) it becomes more and more difficult to get to the true information. Thus - in practice - we actually have lower access to true information than ever before, and this will only get worse, as reaching true information will become even harder among the larger and larger ocean of false information. Reality is becoming fantasy. And fantasy is used to manipulate you to engage in whatever actions are profitable for capitalism - and not only this, but to bully you to do so. "The experts are telling you so, what, are you an idiot? You know better than these people who spend their life working on this? How dare you think for yourself?" But the data is skewed! And people don't know how to think about data. You have to think what mechanism could give rise to that data - that's what is important. But generally this is provided for you by the "experts" - it is the conclusion that they want you to believe.
Capitalism devours itself - even smoking being proven unhealthy becomes a source of making money - new products to help you give up on smoking, psychotherapy, and so forth. Capitalism creates its own problems and then "solves" them - and the solutions always allow for other solutions as well. The analogy I gave in the beginning. It thrives from doing this. Problems do not cripple capitalism, but power it. And capitalism exploits especially the following: drugs, alcohol, sex, cigarettes, and other addiction inducing substances/activities. That's why we're becoming more drug friendly, more casual sex friendly, and so forth. The 1960s weren't the sexually repressed rebelling against their oppressors (as capitalism tells us) - but rather it was exactly what capitalism wanted to happen. More drugs and more promiscuous sex = more business - more medicines for STDs, more money for abortions, more money for addiction treatment with regards to drugs, and so forth. Capitalism must create the problem (or the victims) and then offer them a solution. And if there are no victims, it must make them think they are victims!
Sometimes I feel that when Schopenhauer described the Will - he was actually describing capitalism itself. Indeed there is something uncanny about that thought, at least for me. But maybe it offers some clue as to how it may be possible to overcome capitalism. Anyway, this is a very interesting subject, maybe we should start a thread :P
The point is about [i]how[/I] someone is loved, a distinction between being understood as an object which delivers or a person with significance.
It's not a point about material gain, but whether you are recognised as a person. The difference between, for example, corporation that loves its workers that make it profit and a small businesses where an individual is understood as a person with a life.
In terms of possessions and status, they may be equal. A person of either is paid, given a respect by peers and valued by thier employer, but only one is understood as an individual person. It's a question of whether one is understood as an object which produces value or a person who matters. Are you only understood to be an image which produces value? Or do people grasp you as an individual, a logical and ethical subject that matters in-themselves?
Can I be a person of significance if someone doesn't give me that significance (or I don't give it to myself)? In what sense is it even possible to talk of significance except to an actor who has feelings?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
A person who matters to who? Mattering is a value judgement. You can't say I matter, except by pointing to who I matter to. Maybe I matter to you because you're a kind-hearted person. Still - it's with reference to somebody.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
All this says something about the person evaluating me, and not about myself. If they are good people they will evaluate me as an individual who matters. If they aren't, then they won't. In fact, this is even Kant's notion that he argues about with regards to always maintaining your self-respect - never falling below your own principles. In that case it's about you mattering to yourself - caring about your own self.
So this has to do with love. A loving person will care, an unloving one will not. To be loved is precisely to be significant to someone. To love yourself is precisely to be significant to yourself - to care. Love your neighbour as yourself - care for your neighbour as you care for yourself.
A person can only matter per se if they matter to God, otherwise...no.
Quoting Agustino
For Kant, people matter per se, and should thus always be recognized as "ends in themselves". Of course, in saying this Kant is, in accordance with practical reason, assuming God.
I actually agree ;) ;) ;) - but if I said that to Willow I'd get blasted to a different planet.
Or maybe Willow would get blasted to a different planet...
:-O
It would suddenly dawn on him that there really is a God? >:O
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. Very much appreciated.
Quoting Agustino
Exactly. I think we are on the same chapter, if not the same page with the society/individual dynamic. Both are necessary for each other, and each mirrors the other. The relative mutual co-existence could possibly be expressed in this (perhaps somewhat paradoxical) twofold statement:
The wellbeing between people is dependent on the harmony within each individual.
And the wellbeing within each individual is dependent on the harmony between people.
In the above, the terms "wellbeing" or "harmony" are not specific and absolute. They could be replaced with similar words like goodness, peace, or balance. The word "dependent" could be replaced by "is helped by" or "increases". The main point is the relationship between the two halves of each statement, and between the two sentences. Hopefully, that comes across clearly.
Quoting Agustino
Both Jesus and Guatama Buddha returned to their respective societies having, as you say "transcended this extentiallity and conscious awareness". This is reminiscent of Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces, in which he describes the recurring theme of a person returning to their people after some type of spiritual awakening or experience. They return to what Campbell indicates to be a spiritual "wasteland", as exemplified by TS Eliot's poem of the same name. The "hero" is often met with resistance, violence, and possibly death. They are nonetheless undeterred, and manage to find others of a similar mind, though perhaps weaker and a bit less wise. The Buddha was not martyred, but according to the legend, stood (or should that be "sat") his ground against the forces of Desire, Hatred, and Ignorance on the night of his Awakening. One can make of that what they will. Of course, Campbell assembled an almost superhuman team that surpasses any comic book hero. But perhaps that is difficult to relate to and identity with, as inspiring as it may be.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, yes, yes. That is exactly what i was getting at in a roundabout way. (Though "globalism" may not be the only term one could use, it will do nicely. And for the term "communities", I would define that as "communities of life", so as to extend it to include more than humans alone, since we do not exist in a vacuum. But that is simply my wording preference.)
Thanks again for your input and insights. :)
Increasing the ease of movement combined with encouraging displacement of people for material gain leads to extending the social fabric, in the same way that physical space itself extends. Just as physical space extending causes the space between planets, galaxies, etc. to grow so too this phenomenon of globalisation causes the space between people to grow - both physical space and psychological space. For example, what happens with a couple when one of them wants to move countries, and the other one doesn't? They break up most often. What happens when a family member goes to work in a different country? He loses contact and connection with the rest of his family over time. Globalism is equivalent to social instability and social chaos, especially among people who lack virtue and go after the carrot mindlessly. We're witnessing what is the equivalent of the Big Rip in physics, in our own societies.
Hello, and thanks much for your thoughtful post! Many good points, imho. And thanks for expanding on your previous post in order to help me understand your ideas. I think we are in a general accord about individuality and its related rights being extremely important, and the community existing in a quality proportional to the quality and freedom of all its individuals. You may have seen my response above to Agustino, but I'll repeat a small part:
The wellbeing between people is dependent on the harmony within each individual.
And the wellbeing within each individual is dependent on the harmony between people.
And i gave some other thoughts on that. Which is I think is generally what we are both saying... in a tiny nutshell. But please reply and explain if that is not exactly the case. And likewise, if you may disagree with my "proposition of a truly functioning community" it might perhaps be because I have not given one... yet! :D Or at least, not given an entire one. These various ideas of mine are trying to be coherent and thought-through enough to be called a proposition or a theory, but right now it is more a bundle of skepticism and critique of whatever culture is common for a large portion of so-called western civilization. (for whatever that's worth! But it definitely helps make ideas mentally clearer by writing them down on paper or computer). But i will try to expand upon that in a hopefully logical and helpful way...
Considering as you mentioned "time and evolutionary dynamics" concerning heterogeneity, diversity, and similar ideas; of course that is an intrinsic part of both nature and society. Any organized attempt to forcibly "homogenize" a nation or people is bound to be a repressive power-grab on the part of the leaders, no matter what high-minded ideology they may spout. It seems that when one person (or one small group of people) trys to grab the reigns and fashion society in their image, it goes sour quickly -imho. I quoted Daniel Quinn in a previous post; and he has many ideas about evolution. One of which may be relevant here is his idea about the strength of an ecosystem, and the natural diversity that evolution gave it. Its diversity is its strength because that how it grew. Quinn writes that when humans try to eliminate all plants and animals that are not human food or other product, it eventually destroys the very place we are living. Taking the Taoist method of looking to nature to provide humans some clues as how to live in some kind of sustainable manner, that critical need of diversity for evolution could be applied to human civilization, i believe. It is difficult to go into all possible scenarios, but the general idea of how evolution occurs is the point. But i am no evolutionary scientist... or not even a social scientist. Or nutty professor! :B
Quoting TimeLine
:) Thank you very much, and likewise well-spoken. I agree that there are generally no quick fixes here, at least none that i can see. We got to this point, with all its triumph and all its tragedy, over the course of centuries and millennia. There is much all around us that is good and possesses amazing potential, in both the human and other natural realms. It is usually helpful when one acts on that, as opposed to solely focusing on the negative. But it seems there is some trait in humans to focus firstly on "problems" or to see potential hazards. When balanced, it is a trait that may have kept ancient humans alive to evolve, and possibly still helps us now.
All of this is subject to debate, of course. However, and as I imagine you would agree... impatience, blame, and rage are a volatile brew, one not to be chugged before speaking (or even thinking) about what possibly needs to be changed or improved. This brew may be a tempting and powerful concoction, but it rockets things in the wrong direction and tends to self-destruct. We are have a right to our feelings, of course. The inevitable confusion, anger, sadness, weariness, loneliness, etc. are hopefully counterbalanced by more pleasant emotions so we all can feel inspired to continue. If the evolution of the natural world is helped along by continuous and varied mutations, then perhaps the idea of "civilization" may mutate into something that works more consistently for the greater majority of the community of life.
Quoting 0 thru 9
If we take out the forcibly and if we create the right atmosphere that will enable society to assume that they are a collection of individuals when they really blindly follow in masses, they will no longer be conflicted with the master-slave power struggle and so there is no risk of raising a consciousness to fight against oppression. As I said in another post, take Anderson' concept of Imagined Communities and the idea of nationalism, whereby people have fabricated a union to this whole that though there may exist severe inequalities, violence and exploitation even at the most deplorable level, adherents to this imagined concept will nevertheless defend it tooth and nail despite. The depth of the human capacity to delude itself is markedly clear, so much so that our very own consciousness, what is supposed to be a part of our mind, cognition and self, appears to be so distant from our reach that knowing our own identity, who we really are, is entrenched with the ego-boosting that enlarges our false sense of self and image that who they are is barely recognisable.
That is why I think it is important to eliminate the toxicity; just like you say, the ecosystem has a diversity which is why it is important for us to go back to nature. When the ecosystem experiences something toxic, it forms ways to eliminate that and we should replicate the same in our lives. Not by wearing a dress, eating magic mushrooms and changing your name to 'Parsley' but by being away from the toxic environment and people you are around, from the delusion of an unreal society. I realise when I am in the forest or the desert the smallness of my existence as though I come face to face with the raw 'me' - the desolation of the desert puts death in my mind, the life of the forest transcends me with ideas of renewal and growth, to better myself. I am a gardener, for instance, and it taught me patience, that it takes time to grow and that enabled me to take a step back for once and allow myself to find the right balance. The elimination of this toxicity requires the fearlessness to be alone, even going on a trek by yourself for half a day can really change you, make you aware of how much the day-to-day bullshit has effected your capacity to be conscious and the dependence you allowed because your mind was just too messed up with conflicting emotions.
This is the balance that will enable one to become authentic.
Quoting 0 thru 9
What I have come to learn is that our emotions have a language, they are comparable or perhaps counter-dependent on intuition and I believe emotions are trying to speak to us only because they dissipate when you understand at conscious level why it is there, hence why psychotherapy helps people with depression or anxiety as all they are doing is raising unconscious issues to the surface and confronting it at conscious level. The pleasant emotions are always there, I believe it is in our nature to be happy, but because of our lack of consciousness - the major problems being our environment and our lack of intelligence, hence why childhood plays a significant role - we become dependent on others to try and balance the confusion. Society becomes the artificial way that we rely on almost as a distraction. I often think of emotions as 'me' the real or authentic me trying to talk to the unauthentic me. That is why they say, for instance, that when a man meets the right woman, he is strengthened and his sense of calm is formed because he finds a sense of wholeness. Wholeness implies part-emptiness, something we each of us have because of the fact that we exist separate, that we have freedom and must take responsibility and all that with confusion due to a lack of intelligence and ultimately wisdom compels people to behave irrationally. They rely on societies behavioural norms to dictate what they should and shouldn't do because they do not want to think for themselves.
To judge by the balance of appearances, it seems I am a human animal, much like the others I encounter in the world, or more generally a living sentient being. I see no reason to suppose there is some additional entity in the world, called my "self", any more than I see reason to suppose there is some additional entity in the world, besides this chair, called the "self" of this chair.
I am myself. This chair is itself. It seems to me that "self" is a bit of reflexive grammar; and that the nature of "selves" in general is to be identical to the things they are said by some to be selves of; and that the boundaries of a "self" are identical to the boundaries of the thing it is said by some to be the self of; and so on.
Some people use the word "self" in another way, to speak about "narratives of personal identity", or some such stuff. But it's never been clear to me why they use the word "self" to speak that way.
Relevant and interesting article from Aeon site linked below for your enjoyment and response. Of substantial length too, which is good. Some articles there are good, but are so short they seem like mere introductions. The author of the article (Derek Skillings) also joins in the discussion on the website.
https://aeon.co/essays/what-constitutes-an-individual-organism-in-biology
Concerning the OP about the boundaries of the individual, the article looks at some examples from the plant and animal kingdom to show that the borders are not always clear. An excerpt:
[i]What individuates one organism from another? Plant life is tricky here because it can be hard to tell when a plant is growing and when it’s making something new. The philosopher of biology Peter Godfrey-Smith at the University of Sydney diagnoses the distinction between growth and reproduction as one of the central puzzles at the heart of biological individuality. As he puts it: ‘reproduction is making a new individual, while growth is making more of the same’. But there’s an uncertain relationship between the two. As well as sprouting from seeds, strawberries and many grasses send out above-ground horizontal stems called runners or stolons. New systems of roots and leaves will grow where these runners set down. If the runners get severed, the plants will carry on with no problems. A single strawberry seed can produce a large network of distinct ‘plants’, some connected and some disconnected from the others. It’s difficult to determine the boundaries of the plant that grew from the original seed, and consequently, how many total strawberry plants there are in the garden.
In the early 19th century, plants were what really kickstarted the debates among naturalists about the definition of individuality. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, wrote in The Botanic Garden (1791): ‘A tree is properly speaking a family or swarm of buds, each bud being an individual plant.’ A special draw for the early naturalists building up their museum collections were the unusual organisms swept up during survey expeditions across the world. Strange colonial creatures with weird life cycles were being dredged up from the sea: encrusting colonies of sac-like tunicates that start life swimming around like tadpoles; long chains of transparent jet-propelled salps; and corals, anemones, sea pens and other animals that were initially believed to be plants.[/i]
He goes on later to discuss the colonies of gut bacteria we carry around with us, numbering close to as many cells in the body. Human life as we know it would be radically different, if even possible at all, without these bacteria. Not expecting anyone to thank their gut flora at an award speech, but it blurs the lines drawn between self and other. Which is nod in the direction of complexity theory concerning inter-being, systems, and networks.