What is the self?

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

  1. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    That might be true, but that you don't think the same of non-self is suspicious.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,442
    Non-self, as you understand it, is suspicious, by all means!

    You put against me something that I don't claim.
    You know all those atheists who put it against Christians that they are not real Christians -- because they don't fit the atheists' idea of a Christian? Or all those Christians who put it against Buddhists for not fitting the Christians' idea of what a Buddhist is supposed to be, if he is to be a Buddhist? And so on?

    You're doing the same thing -- putting it against me that I don't fit your idea of me, and that I am acting in ways that are "unlike me". As if your idea of me were the true measure of who I am.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Not at all. I said having nothing to say would by unlike you, because it would. There's nothing to be "put against" you, so there's no need to be defensive.

    And weren't you the one who criticized my definition because you preferred your own? There's nothing wrong with not agreeing with me, but at least allow me my opinion and my definition. You were doing exactly what you describe above when you called my definition a useless convulsion. Useless for whom?

    And you misread my post. I said [(that you don't think the same of non-self) is suspicious]. Not that "the non-self is suspicious".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    I would like to know: Are you being honest about this? Have you ever held it against people? Before, you said:
    "No. The whole problem is that most people are too afraid to actually hold a position. Or, when they do hold a position, it is full of inconsistencies -- and I challenged those. As I said in the end of the thread, the theists have the strongest argument, the strongest definition -- but they lack the guts to stand by it."​
    What do you expect? An opinion, or no opinion? A weak one that molds sweetly and quietly around your own, or a strong one that may contradict yours? Do you bind others to consistency, but absolve yourself?
     
  8. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Jenyar,


    And this betrays your personality view, your assuming to know how I am, what my "essence" is, what the unchanging in me is.

    Why would having nothing to say be unlike me? You can say this only if you have a particular idea of who I am, and who I will be.

    Can you really not imagine that I would have nothing to say, but still be myself?


    You do it constantly, you will find something about me and put it against me.


    And you criticized mine. Why don't you accept my definition?


    How am I not allowing you to have your opinion and your definition?! Am I standing there, with a gun to your head, and threatening to kill you if you don't agree with me?


    Useless for me.


    Either way. I can apply the non-self principle anytime. I cannot apply the personality view anytime without causing suffering.


    Yes.
    But the thing is that you put against me something that I do not claim.
    While I have put it against people what they have in fact claimed.


    The stronger, the better.
    I don't remember ever going against someone who had a strong opinion, even though I maybe thought that that opinion is absurd, or demands to be addressed. I did have a perverse pleasure in picking on people's poor arguments, I admit that.


    Why are you asking me this? You must think very little of me to ask me such questions.

    Do you ask your friends such questions? Or are they so perfect that the situation never arises for you to ask them such things?
     
  9. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Of course I can. I did not say anything about any "essence". Your personality is not your essence, nor is it unchanging. (I thought you didn't believe in an unchanging self.) I didn't say who you would be, just who I think you wouldn't be. You're always free to prove me wrong.

    Based on quite a few posts where you intended to quit sciforums, the religious forums and certain topics, yet have continued, the image of you always having something to say perseveres. Often you don't have anything to say, often you're silent for long periods. But then the words are unspoken. I don't say they will always come out later, but so far, they have.

    In the same way it's possible to say that becoming a popular singer would be very unlike you. It's not a prophecy, just a deduction based on an observable tangent.

    You aren't your arguments.

    I told you why in my posts. It depends on all expressions of self - justified or unjustified - "floating" on top of a shaped non-essence. The mp3 explanation you linked to explains it this way [paraphrase]: "we know there is no self; we can't say 'I am my happiness' or 'I am my sadness' [etc.], although only these properties remain after death - but we know there is no self". My argument is: if it's shaped, there's obviously something underneath. It might not be just a circle or just a triangle, but it's still a shape. I could only speculate in broad terms about what's underneath, which is why I imagine it couldn't satisfy your question. I never thought it could be reduced to an easily explainable, comprehensive definition that you would be able to pick up and "use". I might still accept your definition if you can explain the gaps in your reasoning.

    And by your own criteria, if there are gaps, it is "completely useless, as far as exactness goes."

    Practically. Character assassination comes very close to this.

    Yes, by your standards. Which if applied consistently, should make your own definition just as useless to you. That makes your consistency and your criteria suspect, when questioned.

    There's always something to retreat from or some suffering somewhere to avoid. But is it the non-self that is retreating? Think about that.

    You said they "did not have the guts" to claim. It certainly sounds like you're holding it against them. And the reason you gave for keeping their claims against them, applied to your claims, should be able to justify (to you) a similar reaction.

    But it does not justify such a reaction (to put it against someone) for me. Claim or no claim, everybody is entitled to their opinion. If they don't give one, there's nothing to discuss; if they do have one, it is subject to questioning, criticism or even acceptance. That's how opinions are formed. That's no less than you say you expect, below.

    You also have some poor arguments. Do you admit that?

    I think nothing, I'm asking. Your reaction seems consistent with someone who has absolved themselves from criteria they employ, and I want to know if there's another explanation. I think much of you, which is why I expect there must be some other explanation than some wish to mislead people - even if it's just that you didn't see the inconsistency.

    Yes, I certainly do require the same of my friends. You've met LightEagle, you can ask him if you don't believe me.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2005
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Jenyar,



    To say that something is "unlike me" assumes that you know me well enough to be able to say what or who I am and what or who I am not, and what or who I will be. That is all.


    This is your fabrication. I have never actually stated whether I believe in an unchanging self or not. It was this doubt that get me going.


    It's the same thing.


    Yes, and then you judge me by this deduction of yours, and it makes you ask vicious questions.


    Yet you use them against me!


    A "shaped non-essence"?


    It's not about reduction, it's about basic definition. You can't talk about circles unless you define them as "a circle is a space enclosed by a curved line, every point on which is the same distance from the centre". Such is true of all circles.
    Or, a soul could be defined as "The permanent and unchanging in a person, which is given and governed by God" -- and this is true for all souls.
    Or, Ellion said that the self is the predominant ego state -- in his conception, this is true for all selves.
    While your definition is lost in holistic particularity.


    Also, I see now that giving you the talk on abandoning desire wasn't a good idea; it does require some more understanding of the terms used there. Forget it.


    There are no gaps in my reasoning, but there are gaps in my patience, and big gaps in the time I can afford for posting here.

    Compare the gaps in my reasoning about the self, harm etc. to this: Say you start college. Your intention and your desire is to graduate. But when you are in first grade, you haven't graduated yet. Is there a gap, an inconsistency, a glaring contradiction? And when you finally graduate, you lose the intention and the desire to graduate. Is that a glaring contradiction?

    The gap between starting college and graduating is bridged by taking classes, by taking exams, doing the work. Unless you actually do that, you won't graduate.

    Similary, the "gap" between understanding that there is harm, and the understanding that there is no harm, is bridged by a particular practice.
    If you try to bridge this gap only with the intellectual understanding you *presently* have, things will make little sense.

    I won't do your thinking for you, I won't see you through the argument, and if this means that you think there are gaps in my thinking, so be it.


    Excuse me? Look at what you're doing, how you treat me.
    And no, don't ask me now whether your bad behaviour justifies my bad behaviour. It doesn't.


    Sure, for your understanding. This is one of the reasons why one shouldn't go into explaining oneself to other people.
    But, since we're here, I have to find my way out.


    This question reveals that you don't understand me. And you keep on reading what I say with your own definitions of terms, while disregarding my definitions.


    What on earth makes you think that I *justify* my reaction against them with the things I say I hold against them?!
    You dont' know me at all, apparently. It's vicious that you keep on assuming such mean things about me.


    Sometimes, yes. So? Everyone makes poor arguments every now and then.


    No. There was a particular line of thought that brought you to ask such a question.


    Yes, there is another explanation. And it is that you apparently think the worst of me, that I am a proud, nasty, vicious bitch who is here for display of her immense intelligence and to mislead people!
     
  11. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    I stand corrected. You said, "I agree, there seems to be something that remains the same in us -- no matter what circumstances we are in. What is this that remains unchanging?"

    Why, then, do you object if I call this unchanging self "identity"? Is there a good objective reason why it can't be called that? Because it certainly isn't any "accidental characteristic" like our happiness, our sadness, our suffering or any of our experiences.

    In fact, at a certain stage I thought we could agree on this, when you said:
    That identity is in flux, it changes, it is not absolute and permanent. And if it is not absolute and permanent, then it cannot be identity.
    I pointed out that it might still be called identity if such a reductionism isn't committed, because while those things are in flux, they don't reflect the whole identity. But you dismissed this as too holistic. You kept narrowing the requirements for a definition, until no definition was possible anymore.

    Yes, I thought it was absurd too.

    No, it was just lost in the description, perhaps. Like the visible shape of a hyberbole might be lost in the mathematical equation of it.

    And you assume I don't have that understanding. The explanation given in the mp3 is a compromise - that the "right" desire is desireable, and that desire disappears when it is satisfied - and it has been used before. I'll be surprised if you don't realize this yourself, although it might take a little time.

    No, you're still talking about desire, and I've explained this very principle when I talked about how necessary it is to introduce the dimension of time. See my explanation on the "triangular circle".

    Simple practical knowledge. You can't reach the end of any journey without walking the road. This is true whatever you believe, and even if you don't have an end in mind, such as to graduate. Often, we only have a direction and a few bits of information. Have you read The Piligrim's Progress by John Bunyan?

    I'm talking about the present reality, the "road we're walking". Take for instance the notions of peace. There is a gap between where we're now, and peace. Obviously one person attaining peace is a long way away from a comprehensive definition of peace. You're talking about individuals having no selves makes the same jump between you attaining such a state, and there being such a state.

    I don't, but it's strange that you should complain about that since you said that it's a reasonable thing to do if someone's definition is useless. You continually replaced my (admittely hard to understand) definition with your (simplistic) reductionistic one:
    So is it acceptable practice, or not?

    I take it then that you can't justify your actions? And if you don't, why do you expect others to?

    Exactly. There's no point in holding it against anybody, not for you, not for anyone. But as much as someone else must accept your criticism, you must surely be able to accept their criticism in return.

    Of course there was, and I don't know if that line of thought is correct. Hence the question. Are you criticizing me for not knowing you, now?

    I don't think so at all. Why you insist on thinking the worst of me, instead of helping me right, is beyond me.
     

Share This Page