Self

[Received]

I emphatically don't believe the self is identifiable with the body, even though people often associate the self with the body, and this doesn't mean at all that the self is somehow therefore spiritual or non-material. But something a little interesting happened the other day. I was playing disc golf and noticed a few guys looking for one of their discs that was down in the ditch. One person said to the other one, "you're right here," referring to the disc.

For some reason I thought, "that's strange to refer to a person as a disc," but really, in a very concrete sense, that person *was* his disc. We also speak of people who drive in cars that when they're in the car, the car also *is* them -- as if they become part of the car. Or take a woman who gets a compliment from her friends when she's trying on an outfit: that's so you. When she's wearing it, it somehow welds into the self she is.

I've come to believe that the self is whatever the individual associates with as "mine". This is a very screwy idea, because we're used to associating the self with the body, and again the body often is the self, given that the self considers the body a "mine".

Just an idea. Try it out: go around seeing if you can find self in whatever a person considers "mine". It really seems to fit.

If this is true (yes, quatona, this is just a thought experiment), then what does this say about the self? The self is whatever consciousness associates itself with in such a way where it wants to drag the thing inward. That's what we do with our possessions: we drag them towards our assumed center of self, like a child who clasps at his favorite toy and so brings it inward, sucks it up, cuts it off from the world.

Well, here's where it gets really interesting. The Buddhists speak of anatta, or "no soul/self". To the Buddhists everything is so monastically tied together that there is no real separateness, and our minds only create this separateness because of consciousness. But if you get to the point to where you don't consider anything to be "mine", then you have no self. Anatta.

 

[seeingeyes]

I emphatically don't believe the self is identifiable with the body, even though people often associate the self with the body, and this doesn't mean at all that the self is somehow therefore spiritual or non-material. But something a little interesting happened the other day. I was playing disc golf and noticed a few guys looking for one of their discs that was down in the ditch. One person said to the other one, "you're right here," referring to the disc.

For some reason I thought, "that's strange to refer to a person as a disc," but really, in a very concrete sense, that person *was* his disc. We also speak of people who drive in cars that when they're in the car, the car also *is* them -- as if they become part of the car. Or take a woman who gets a compliment from her friends when she's trying on an outfit: that's so you. When she's wearing it, it somehow welds into the self she is.

I've come to believe that the self is whatever the individual associates with as "mine". This is a very screwy idea, because we're used to associating the self with the body, and again the body often is the self, given that the self considers the body a "mine".

Just an idea. Try it out: go around seeing if you can find self in whatever a person considers "mine". It really seems to fit.

If this is true (yes, quatona, this is just a thought experiment), then what does this say about the self? The self is whatever consciousness associates itself with in such a way where it wants to drag the thing inward. That's what we do with our possessions: we drag them towards our assumed center of self, like a child who clasps at his favorite toy and so brings it inward, sucks it up, cuts it off from the world.

Well, here's where it gets really interesting. The Buddhists speak of anatta, or "no soul/self". To the Buddhists everything is so monastically tied together that there is no real separateness, and our minds only create this separateness because of consciousness. But if you get to the point to where you don't consider anything to be "mine", then you have no self. Anatta.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. There is no distance between my self and what is mine. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. My husband is my man. My children are my kids. My friends are my girls. My car is my car (love that car...it goes fast!).

And in this way, we cannot separate our "selves" from our bodies. This body is mine. Is is not a mere vehicle for a soul, it is one of the largest contributing factors to who I am. I would be quite different if I had some other body, I would not be me.

I do not find any joy in the Buddhist idea, not because I want to cling to my self (though I quite like my self), but because I want my self to be clinged to. I like that I am my husband's woman. I like that I am my children's mother. I like that my God grabs hold of me and won't let go.

To my mind, the goal is not to release all things, but to grab hold of all things. To love far more, and far more fiercely than we do now. To honor and protect, not only those things that are clearly ours, but to expand that circle to include people who don't obviously "belong" to us. To fight for each other. To lay down our own self even for that guy in the street. That guy in the street needs to be mine just as surely as my friends are.

That is the way of love.

 

[Davian]

I emphatically don't believe the self is identifiable with the body,

You lost me there.

 

[Received]

Take a left at the dead end.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If this is true (yes, quatona, this is just a thought experiment), then what does this say about the self?

Imo, not much. What it does say something about is the way we western humans use language. I'm quite positive that you can go to other cultures and not find such language constructs at all.

It's all metaphorical. When asked, a person will not say that the car becomes a part of "him" when he drives it. It's just a figure of speech. A way to convey a certain concept. I think you're trying to read way to much into it.

 

[Received]

I don't think I'm reading too much into it. I think it goes beyond metaphor, as screwy as that sounds. IMO.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think I'm reading too much into it. I think it goes beyond metaphor, as screwy as that sounds. IMO.

Why do you think that?

 

[Freodin]

I think both of you are wrong.

As I see it, the self is not "the body", but an activity performed by "the body". In this regard, it could be said to "be" the body, because it doesn't exist without it.

But on the other in, in this regard also all the connected objects mentioned could be said to be extentions of "the self"... as objects involved in activities of the bodily existence of "the self". The car, the toy are (part of) "me" in the same way that the hand, the eye, the brain are part of "me".

 

[variant]

Well, here's where it gets really interesting. The Buddhists speak of anatta, or "no soul/self". To the Buddhists everything is so monastically tied together that there is no real separateness, and our minds only create this separateness because of consciousness. But if you get to the point to where you don't consider anything to be "mine", then you have no self. Anatta.

I don't think there is an objective distinction between one thing and another, everything is pretty much connected fundamentally.

I also think that consciousness is created out of establishing a differentiation between self and not self, I think that is the basis of it.

The metaphor you reference as referring to things you do, or own, or your sense of style as part of yourself is just a slight difference in that definitive boundary which is flexible.

That definition though is just part of the system describing things, it is only one of the many selves that go into creating your identity (and all of which require your body to operate).

The other point here though is that at the point where you remove the sense of self and become everything, you lose consciousness necessarily.

 

[quatona]

I emphatically don't believe the self is identifiable with the body, even though people often associate the self with the body, and this doesn't mean at all that the self is somehow therefore spiritual or non-material. But something a little interesting happened the other day. I was playing disc golf and noticed a few guys looking for one of their discs that was down in the ditch. One person said to the other one, "you're right here," referring to the disc.

For some reason I thought, "that's strange to refer to a person as a disc," but really, in a very concrete sense, that person *was* his disc. We also speak of people who drive in cars that when they're in the car, the car also *is* them -- as if they become part of the car. Or take a woman who gets a compliment from her friends when she's trying on an outfit: that's so you. When she's wearing it, it somehow welds into the self she is.

I've come to believe that the self is whatever the individual associates with as "mine". This is a very screwy idea, because we're used to associating the self with the body, and again the body often is the self, given that the self considers the body a "mine".

Just an idea. Try it out: go around seeing if you can find self in whatever a person considers "mine". It really seems to fit.

If this is true (yes, quatona, this is just a thought experiment), then what does this say about the self?

I am not convinced that - even though, to differing degrees, people tend to identify themselves about their possessions - this is all there is to constructing the idea of the "self". At best, this is but one (and, imo, a minor) aspect of constructing the idea of the "self".

On another note, I tend towards the notion that identityfing yourself via your possessions is just a tragic (substitutional, if you will) strategy of fulfilling the need for a sense of belonging.
OTOH (and I have mentioned this in another thread of yours recently), words, concepts and definitions are basically led by the will to distinguish, and oftentimes people (even though they have no positive idea about e.g. the "self") are quite content with defining their self by merely emphasizing what they are not.

 

[Received]

I think both of you are wrong.

As I see it, the self is not "the body", but an activity performed by "the body". In this regard, it could be said to "be" the body, because it doesn't exist without it.

Just because something is dependent on something else doesn't make it the same thing a this something else.

But on the other in, in this regard also all the connected objects mentioned could be said to be extentions of "the self"... as objects involved in activities of the bodily existence of "the self". The car, the toy are (part of) "me" in the same way that the hand, the eye, the brain are part of "me".

Something like this is what I'm trying to point out. Neuroscientists have pointed out that when a person uses a tool, the person's brain treats the tool as if it was a part of his body. Something like this can be applied to the idea of treating objects that clearly aren't attached to our bodies as part of our identities.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Interesting idea. One of the subtleties that emerged in thinking about this is that those non-organic things identified with self (clothing, toys, cars) lose that dynamic when dismissed from one's presence, while organic entities (what religious fanatics like me refer to as spiritual beings) like children or even pets maintain that union even when not present.

 

[Freodin]

Just because something is dependent on something else doesn't make it the same thing a this something else.

And I didn't say it is. The language we commonly use is not very precise, and such generalisations can lead to misunderstandings.

I said "in this regard (the dependence), it could be said...". That is quite different from "the body is the self".

Just as, using your examples, you did not really mean "the self is a car/disc".

Or did you?

Something like this is what I'm trying to point out. Neuroscientists have pointed out that when a person uses a tool, the person's brain treats the tool as if it was a part of his body. Something like this can be applied to the idea of treating objects that clearly aren't attached to our bodies as part of our identities.

That is what I was trying to say as well. But I have to refer you back to your own initial statement: that something "is treated as something" does not make it something.

 

[Received]

And I didn't say it is. The language we commonly use is not very precise, and such generalisations can lead to misunderstandings.

I said "in this regard (the dependence), it could be said...". That is quite different from "the body is the self".

Just as, using your examples, you did not really mean "the self is a car/disc".

Or did you?

I think I was! The self is that which identifies with something -- consciousness or intentionality directed toward something. Or something. So even though consciousness (fully or partially) originates with the body (brain), the self becomes that which consciousness identifies with.

 

[Received]

Reminds me of a quote from Freud:

Normally there is nothing we are more certain of than the feeling of our self, our own ego. It seems to us an independent unitary thing, sharply outlined against everything else. That this is a deceptive appearance, and that on the contrary the ego extends inwards without any sharp delimitation, into an unconscious mental entity which we call the id and to which it forms a facade, was first discovered by psycho-analytic research, and the latter still has much to tell us about the relations of the ego to the id. But towards the outer world, at any rate, the ego seems to keep itself clearly and sharply outlined and delimited. There is only one state of mind in which it fails to do this -- an unusual state, it is true, but not one that can be judged as pathological. At its height, the state of being in love threatens to obliterate the boundaries between ego and object. Against all the evidence of his senses, the man in love declares that he and his beloved are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.​

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

The self is that which identifies with something -- consciousness or intentionality directed toward something.

And we know intuitively that to identify with inanimate things is superficial (love of money and other "things") while to identify in some sense with animate beings has value. Odd state of affairs for a physicalist worldview.