What is the self?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by water, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Everybody, I shall respond in due time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    aaaarggghhh!!! is that thing watching me??

    :bugeye:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nameless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    "He took his vorpal sword in hand:
    Long time the manxome foe he sought --
    So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
    And stood awhile in thought."

    Example. We conceive of a cup half full of water. The context of the half that is full, the defining context, is the half of the cup that is 'empty'. The context also includes the cup. The concept of the cup is 'defined' by that which is not cup. The 'space' around containing the 'cup shaped hole', etc... Definition necessarily involves what the 'defined' is not. I can only be 'me' if I am not 'thee'. Am I not understanding your question? Duality IS context.

    I don't much care for having this discussion within the context of a match, but... Lead on MacDuff!

    Not so much 'entering into a duality'; more like duality is a mutually arising aspect of an arisen conception. Two sides of the same coin.

    I can appreciate that. Just don't hurt yourself...

    I hate jargon! It usually just obfuscates.. but.. yes, I am saying that 'x' (as a real 'defined' concept) of any quantity or quality can only exist within a dualistic context. A glass 1/10th full of good California wine must necessarily be within the context of (among others) 9/10ths emptiness.

    At the very least. Yes.

    First, I would question the validity of the terms here as I have not found that a temporally limited bio-computer such as the mind can actually fully 'conceive' of either an 'eternal' (which would include, "the x that cannot be undone" as a subset). We can repeat the word ad nauseum, but it will only be a word, never an experience to be definitively 'conceptualized'. Mind winds to a halt when trying to fully understand such posited terms as 'infinite' and 'eternal'. It is like positing a 'god' and then attributing what are imagined as very special 'qualities' (so special, that no one has ever had experience of them, neither actual evidence of their existence in the first place) to this very special 'created' god. Who can argue with such vaguely posited and emotionally 'accepted' qualities for such a 'construct' as 'god'?

    Assuming the 'reality' (for argument sake) of 'something' in a universal state of permanence, unchangeable, unaffected, the same always and forever, perfectly symmetrical, etc.. As this cannot be conceptualized, it would have to 'exist' beyond concept and experience (an artical of faith), and thus beyond 'context' and thus beyond 'duality'. 'It' would/could only be 'self referential'.

    Again, I would posit that your 'conception' (of eternity) is and can only be a tenuously nebulous 'sniffing' around a bush that you are 'accepting' as 'existing' while attempting to 'quantify' and 'qualitize' your absolutely alien (to the mind) hypothesis.
    Yes, as I said, it can only be 'self referrential' as NOTHING ELSE CAN EXIST or it would, by definition, be 'limited'..

    "One, two! One, two! And through and through
    The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back."

    *__-
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Ellion,



    Question, is the self independent? Can it be independent, and f yes, in what way is it independent?


    * * *


    Jenyar,


    The consideration I find pertinent here is about our fundamental understanding of what enjoyment is, and what a "fulfilling" life is.

    Over the years, I came to the stance that trying to manage the satisfying of one's sensual and intellectual desires doesn't lead to the satisfaction of them. Desire is insatiable. We may go in for trades of all kinds, but I eventually realized that such trades get me nowhere, except that they make me miserable.
    Well, one may of course work hard and provide the material means to satisfy those desires, and it may work quite well, for a long time even. But in the final analysis, one's happiness then still depends on external factors.


    * * *


    wesmorris,


    It can be multi-faceted and changing, sure. But if an entity is to have an *identity*, then this identity is to be such that that entity can be recognized to be what it is independent of context.

    "Wes: nerd for hire" and "Wes: the lucky father of two cuties" have something in common, or are pointing at something that is always there when Wes is there. So I'd say that something is your identity. Question is, how to define that ... (I mean in general terms, what constitutes a definition of identity.)


    So you can never answer the question "Who am I?" independently of context?


    Exactly. And what does this "street address" and the likes entail?


    I don't understand ...? How should the world reflect one's value?


    I'm trying to find a generalization so that we may come to a definition of "self".

    Something like the general formula "y = kx + n". Which can then be applied to individual instances, of course, like "19 = 5 × 3 + 4", or "74 = 33 × 2 + 8" etc. -- all those equations, albeit numerically different, work by the same principle.

    If we don't assume there is a "general formula of the psyche or self" with which the pysche or self of anyone can be described, communication is impossible.

    For example, I assume that you are like me, that you have the same set of abilities -- that you can talk, listen, write, etc. -- or I'd never continue communication with you. Maybe you can type faster, or speak louder etc., but this is inconsequential. Point is, that you can do those same things as I.

    That we continue communication with people supposes that they have a self structured (in roundabout) the same way as we. So, what are the elements of that structure?


    At the time of acting, value is static.


    Or you just don't understand. A "poorly formed value" is when someone doesn't know whether they truly value something or not; or when the value is extrinsic and not internalized (when people do things because they feel they must do it "because society commands so" while at the same time they don't value societal norms).


    It is not about external observers.
    It's about what a person can observe about oneself and one's values and actions.


    Well, I'm certainly not like that. I came to realize that I sometimes run on autopilot and only later on noticed that I was doing things I could not say I value.


    Surely so, in a general sense. But autopilot is in direct opposition of the self, isn't it? Wouldn't you say that only the manual (as opposed to autopilot) is a true presentation of the self?


    What drives you to shave, to get a haircut?
    Maybe your family isn't on your mind at that time, but your motivation to take care of your appearance may well have to do with you caring for your familiy -- through such reasoning: "My family is most important to me, and so it is important that I provide for them. In order to provide for them, I must be healthy and be presentable so that I don't get fired".


    And what do you have to do with what is going on? Do you have any impact on what is going on?
     
  8. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Jenyar,



    I hope you will keep it in mind too.


    So what if I'm judging the answers? I'm not judging the person who has stated them.
    Also, as the thread-starter here, I have a somewhat different role than other posters, I also moderate the discussion to an extent. I am pursuing a goal (that of defining what the self is) and try to keep to it as good as possible. This isn't merely a collection of opinions.


    What you are asking here is not the same kind of questioning I made earlier. The principles of informal logic are assumed to be accepted here in this section of the forum; those principles are basic to any discussion here -- at least, this is hoped for by many posters, or they would not call upon the authority of logic.

    But the questions I was posing were about a particular topic.


    I don't understand. The only problem is what we put into the premises, the logic itself is not a problem.

    "If A contains B, and B contains C, then A contains C" holds true, and this is a logical reasoning we often rely on.
    But whether it holds true when A = universe, B = humans, C = soul -- is another matter, not a matter of logic (at least not directly).


    Am I thinking that? I don't think so.


    I am not assuming that. That "our existence is logical"? I'd say it is a nonsensical statement, to say "our existence is logical". Is it logical that the walls in my room are skyblue?


    I've read over this definition several times, and I don't understand it ...
    Everything I can observe about myself? I can observe my intentions, for example. Are they what you'd call "natural"? I can observe my actions. Are they "natural"?


    No, but it is a prerequisite for us to have a name and a definition for something if we are to perceive it at all.
    If you don't have a name and a definition of what an "atom" is, you won't see it. If you don't have a name and a definition for "yellow", you won't see it -- it may be there, or not.


    I disagree. It seems to me that self-reference plays a crucial role for a self to understand itself as a self. No self-reference, no self.


    That wasn't the problem ... A photo is usually considered as a veritable presentation of a specimen of a species. But a drawing is already abstracting; it usually presents an ideal (and thus the embodiment of a definition) specimen of a species. This is why pictures in biology and other science books are often drawings, not photos. A photo presents an actual specimen of a species, a drawing presents an ideal specimen of a species.


    I don't understand you. How am I insisting on a definition that mus lie outside any cognitive framework?


    Again, who is "we"?

    Also, I think holism went into your head. If we think strictly holistically, then no generalizations are possible, no definitions, no abstractions. If we think strictly holistically, then people have nothing in common, but each is a unique specimen, functioning by structurally unique principles (not only elementary unique).


    And it took you to page 5 to say this?! You could have said this right away and save everyone a lot of tangents.
    So you do have a definition of self, but you were keeping it to yourself so far!
     
  9. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    wesmorris,


    But then it is not identity! An apple is an apple, no matter if it is on the tree or in a basket.

    Uh. But what is that thing in your stomach called after you've eaten that apple ...
    Where is the apple ...


    Mhm!


    Considering this, and what has been said before -- let's review how meaningful it is to make identity-statements.

    I love apples.
    Peter posts at Sciforums.
    Anna has a cat.
    I love sunshine.
    I am typing.
    She is skiing.
    They have a cold.
    I repair computers.
    You tutor German.
    I am minding my own business.
    We like to help people.
    I can't paint.
    He was robbed.

    ...


    So ... I'd say either identity is multi-facetted and always changing, or it is not the identity/self which does things or that which things are being done to or happen to.

    Am I defined by having a love for apples? Is my identity defined by the love for apples?
    Is Peter defined by posting at Sci? Is Peter's identity defined by posting at Sci?
    Are they defined by having a cold? Is their identity defined by having a cold?

    etc. etc.



    * * *


    nameless,


    I agree. And if any of the two is to be known, both have to be known.



    P.S.
    A while back, I said that I am someone else in English, and you replied how this is an important consideration and hoped I was not saying that lightly. I didn't get to reply in that thread, but I haven't forgotten about it. That I am someone else in English is, for me, quite an important insight and I am not taking it lightly. It's a strange thing to experience -- having a different sense of self, depending on the language.
     
  10. Harlequin Banned Banned

    Messages:
    126
    Because this voice is still only the result of knowledge and experience.
    What is it which made that one voice the one finally considered "right"? Perhaps the observation of the result of prior experience?

    A Gestalt can never be defined as being one thing. It is the amalgamation of many things.

    A question. Why is it that people born of a certain cultural background always remain at least partially true to that background, regardless of future experience?
     
  11. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    how do you mean independent? the self is interdependent. there has to be a relationship with further points of reference.
    i.e. the statement "i am this" also says, much less directly, "i am not that".

    self can be independent in the sense of not requiring specific points (or A specific point) of reference to maintain the sense of self, but it will always be dependent on having further points of reference.

    i.e.in order to say at any point "i am this" then i necessarilly have to be "not that"
     
  12. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    that is not very clear really is it?
     
  13. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Regarding personal identity, I'm going with the obvious multi-faceted and always changing thing. Yah. You know, cuz as I see it - it's true. What's interesting is as ellion implies notes the other reference points too. They can be either changing or static in how they see me. There can be any range from agreement to disagreement on what defines me from either perspective.
     
  14. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    yes yes! ahem! *coughs*
     
  15. ellion Magician & Exorcist (93) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    how pertinent is this statment in this context on this thread?
     
  16. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Because the earliest conditioning seems to be the strongest one.
     
  17. Harlequin Banned Banned

    Messages:
    126
    Ah. And after that?
    Life is simply conditioning on conditioning. Layers on layers.
    It is no coincidence that the analysis of the self is often likened to peeling away the layers of an onion. Stilll less a coincidence that when that onion is discerned as being peeled, little or no satisfaction is gained from the result. The reason for that is that, after peeling away layers and layers, there is nothing in the centre but a seed - and that seed has no more meaning or hidden secrets than that of a pea does.
     
  18. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    But the later layers are conditioned by the earlier ones.


    Yes, if we view the self as a construct.
     
  19. Harlequin Banned Banned

    Messages:
    126
    Exactly!

    Well, that's a decision you must make. Have you the courage to accept it, or will you go on trying to find something more acceptable?
     
  20. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    I don't think accepting that is about "courage". I'd say accepting the self for being a construct is a matter of agenda, and/or of consistency.

    Like I often used to say, consistency is a bitch, and you can never really come to an end with it. So you may as well give up the quest for finding full consistency. And rather do something that does bear fruit.

    As for agenda -- that agenda may be driven by conditioning (biological or social), or by something else (at least technically possible; like by God).
     
  21. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    That's an interesting thing to say -- to DECIDE what the self is. How can such a decision possibly be done?
    Whatever you decide here, you fall into a reductionism, and are only following your agenda. That agenda being based on your conditioning so far ...
     
  22. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    The self is life, truth, resurrection and the way. It is also the eternal existence.
     
  23. Harlequin Banned Banned

    Messages:
    126
    Actually, I didn't tell you to "decide what the self is". I told you to make a decision whether or not to accept what it is.

    There are plenty out there who are prepared to entertain the possibility that they themselves are little more than a biological organism which has rather complex responses to certain stimuli. They'll stick it on the shelf as a theory alongside their books by Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Camus. But they don't really believe it. It's simply something they'll trot out at parties on demand in order to look all, like, cool and nihilistical.

    The human waasn't really designed to look at itself too closely, nor to accept what it finds within.
     

Share This Page