The Self

[nebulaJP]

Here I am starting a thread about the Self. My view: there are no separate selves, only a single substance which could perhaps be called 'awareness-experience' for lack of a better term.

Within this substance, thoughts, sensations and perceptions arise. Some sensations and perceptions lead to thoughts, such as the concept of the separate self. But that concept is just another thing happening within awareness-experience.

When we say "I exist" it's true. We do exist but there is only one of us. There is only one Self, unlike the conventional view in which there are many 'selves'.

 

[quatona]

I tend to agree, but find the choice of the word "Self" unfortunate. Turning the meaning of a word practically into its opposite isn´t the best way of handling things.
"Self" - as opposed to what?
I´m also not sure I´d call awareness-experience a "substance".

 

[Ana the Ist]

This reminds me of a recent thread...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Such a Cartesian, pre-Freudian notion of the "Self" seems completely untenable to me:
we see evidence of the fragmented and constructed nature of the self in everyday life, whether we'ret talking about subconscious or repressed desires, identity constructs (communal or individual) or even self-contradictory impulses existing within a single person.

There is such a thing as a mind-continuity, an ever-evolving stream of consciousness that connects the "I" of today to the "I" of ten years ago (or ten years from now) - but to maintain that this mind-continuity was an unchanging, static and essential quality rather than a malleable construct would require a kind of evidence that simply cannot be provided because it does not exist.

 

[Noxot]

I can agree but since the oneness concept is becoming widely known prepare for it to be crucified. multiplicity is the same thing as one to me, that is why 'Elohim' is such a wonderful word in my eyes.

 

[brightlights]

Here I am starting a thread about the Self. My view: there are no separate selves, only a single substance which could perhaps be called 'awareness-experience' for lack of a better term.

Within this substance, thoughts, sensations and perceptions arise. Some sensations and perceptions lead to thoughts, such as the concept of the separate self. But that concept is just another thing happening within awareness-experience.

When we say "I exist" it's true. We do exist but there is only one of us. There is only one Self, unlike the conventional view in which there are many 'selves'.

This may be a fun philosophical pontification but do you really believe this? The practical implications would be so extreme that it would be impossible to live a normal life, which I'm sure that you do.

 

[brightlights]

I tend to agree, but find the choice of the word "Self" unfortunate. Turning the meaning of a word practically into its opposite isn´t the best way of handling things.
"Self" - as opposed to what?
I´m also not sure I´d call awareness-experience a "substance".

What do you mean by "I", "tend", and "agree"?

 

[nebulaJP]

I tend to agree, but find the choice of the word "Self" unfortunate. Turning the meaning of a word practically into its opposite isn´t the best way of handling things.
"Self" - as opposed to what?

I can see why something like that would be frowned upon but in this case I feel there are extenuating circumstances. Language is based on the conventional view, which takes for granted the subject/object distinction.

In this alternative view, everything is subject and there are no objects. So if you want to talk about it at all, you have to 'tweak' words a little. The capital S is suppose to signify the alternate meaning.

This may be a fun philosophical pontification but do you really believe this?

I don't believe it, I know it by experience. This is what I must have known as an infant because it's all I know now, and it's all any of us ever know:

Awareness of awareness itself

Awareness of the current thought (for an infant it would be an image or sound etc., with no vocabulary or conceptualization yet)

Awareness of the current sensation

Awareness of the current perception

Gradually through conditioning, I began to categorize experience into me/not me and so came to believe in the separate self. Now I have dropped that belief.

 

[nebulaJP]

Such a Cartesian, pre-Freudian notion of the "Self" seems completely untenable to me:
we see evidence of the fragmented and constructed nature of the self in everyday life, whether we'ret talking about subconscious or repressed desires, identity constructs (communal or individual) or even self-contradictory impulses existing within a single person.

There is such a thing as a mind-continuity, an ever-evolving stream of consciousness that connects the "I" of today to the "I" of ten years ago (or ten years from now) - but to maintain that this mind-continuity was an unchanging, static and essential quality rather than a malleable construct would require a kind of evidence that simply cannot be provided because it does not exist.

I don't think we're on the same sheet of music here. In the OP, I was using the word 'Self' interchangeably with awareness-experience. There is only one Self - pure experience. And 'self' with a lower case 's', on the other hand, refers to the notion of a separate self. You seem to be under the impression that I wrote some particular thing about the separate self, but all I said about it is that it doesn't exist - "there are no separate selves…"

Sorry for the mix-up. I should have written the OP better.

 

[quatona]

What do you mean by "I", "tend", and "agree"?

I am totally aware that some ideas aren´t translatable into a language that is built upon paradigms that don´t even allow to express these ideas.

 

[quatona]

I can see why something like that would be frowned upon but in this case I feel there are extenuating circumstances. Language is based on the conventional view, which takes for granted the subject/object distinction.

Yes, I am totally aware of this problem, and I am tending towards the notion, that - exactly because the very purpose of words is to make distinctions - language (any existing or hypothetical language) can´t express these ideas. (However, I have always wondered if it might be possible to have a language without nouns - which would at least be some improvement.)

In this alternative view, everything is subject and there are no objects. So if you want to talk about it at all, you have to 'tweak' words a little. The capital S is suppose to signify the alternate meaning.

Yes, and - as I hope was clear from my post - I didn´t mean to hold that against your idea...I just felt that using "Self" was more than a "minor tweaking" and not the most fortunate choice of word.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Ah, now I understand - and agree. Panpsychism is a valid and plausible model of reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here I am starting a thread about the Self. My view: there are no separate selves, only a single substance which could perhaps be called 'awareness-experience' for lack of a better term.

I see no convincing reason to think of selfhood as a "substance", and I don't associate my "self" with pure "awareness-experience".

Yes, I notice the capitalization of "Self". That strikes me as hiding the issue of selfhood in an abstraction. It is like saying that I'm not talking about dogs, but about Dog, which is a single substance that makes up dogs and is the truth behind the false separateness of dogs.

This line of thought is a non-starter for me. Yes, I realize that there are traditions of thought that proceed in precisely this way, but I can't relate it very well to any of my own thoughts on the subject.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nebulaJP]

Yes, I notice the capitalization of "Self". That strikes me as hiding the issue of selfhood in an abstraction. It is like saying that I'm not talking about dogs, but about Dog, which is a single substance that makes up dogs and is the truth behind the false separateness of dogs.

Well, all issues are hidden in abstractions because words are abstract, representational symbols.

Self doesn't just make up 'selves'. It makes up everything. Say I am looking at a tree. I am that experience. I'm not a 'me' looking at something else that is 'not me'. I'm the tree, a human body, the air, any thoughts I'm aware of, the grass, the sounds…all aspects of the experience are equally 'me'.

 

[nebulaJP]

I tend to agree, but find the choice of the word "Self" unfortunate. Turning the meaning of a word practically into its opposite isn´t the best way of handling things.
"Self" - as opposed to what?
I´m also not sure I´d call awareness-experience a "substance".

It's not the opposite. The opposite of self is 'other'. In this view, there is no other. Subject, no object(s).

Most people with the conventional view would say that regardless of whether it's separate or not, the self experiences awareness. The alternative view agrees with that, so that's why it's a good word to use.

The point of divergence is when it comes to 'other'. In the conventional view, 'other' exists; in this view it doesn't - the Self is only aware of itself.

Yes, I am totally aware of this problem, and I am tending towards the notion, that - exactly because the very purpose of words is to make distinctions - language (any existing or hypothetical language) can´t express these ideas. (However, I have always wondered if it might be possible to have a language without nouns - which would at least be some improvement.)

Agreed, that it would be an improvement. 'Experiencing' is probably more accurate than 'Self' or 'experience'.

 

[nebulaJP]

"Self" - as opposed to what?

The Self/experience is also called 'the absolute', meaning the non-relative - something that isn't defined by its relationship to something else. So in this very special case, it doesn't need to be opposed to anything, IMO.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, all issues are hidden in abstractions because words are abstract, representational symbols.

One ought to be careful not to treat abstractions as concretes. That's much more than a language issue.

Self doesn't just make up 'selves'. It makes up everything. Say I am looking at a tree. I am that experience. I'm not a 'me' looking at something else that is 'not me'. I'm the tree, a human body, the air, any thoughts I'm aware of, the grass, the sounds…all aspects of the experience are equally 'me'.

That is just a philosophical mess from my perspective. It is true that a subjective experience of a tree exists for you, but that doesn't mean that you aren't aware of an objectively existing tree that is not directly a part of you as an aware entity.

You aren't the tree. You are an objectively existing human being who is processing sensory data about an objectively existing tree. This act of processing is only one aspect or function of your existence as a human individual.

You are much more than "experience", IMV.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nebulaJP]

What can we know? Can we know anything other than awareness of experience? If so, how?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What can we know? Can we know anything other than awareness of experience? If so, how?

Are you a solipsist?

I think that we can very reasonably conclude that our life experience points to an objective reality -- that trees aren't just blobs of brown and green in our minds, but are physical biological entities that we are aware of through reflected light, our eyes, and our visual neural systems.

We conclude this using our powers of reason, combined with years of life experience. Largely, this involves inductive reasoning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[nebulaJP]

Are you a solipsist?

I think that we can very reasonably conclude that our life experience points to an objective reality -- that trees aren't just blobs of brown and green in our minds, but are physical biological entities that we are aware of through reflected light, our eyes, and our visual neural systems.

We conclude this using our powers of reason, combined with years of life experience. Largely, this involves inductive reasoning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Here I'm breaking down 'experience' into components:

Awareness of awareness itself (the experience of being aware)
Awareness of the current thought
Awareness of the current sensation
Awareness of the current perception

This is all we know.

When the geocentric model was the commonly accepted cosmology, people were aware of the (then) current thought that reasonably concluded the earth was at the center of the universe. You are aware of the current thought that concludes there is an objective reality independent of experience. But you still only know awareness of experience. In this case, experience comes in the form of the current thought.

I'm not a solipsist. My metaphysical view is the same as the one an infant would describe if it were able. Infants don't know anything about human bodies, personhood, objects, minds, etc. An infant hasn't yet correlated the sensation of moving its hand in front of its face with the perception of seeing a hand move in front of its face, so it makes no distinction between the perception of seeing a hand and the perception of seeing say, a rattle. All it knows is uninterpreted, non-conceptualized, pure experience. Unlike an infant, I understand the concept of distinctions, but don't believe in them.

One thing about 'minds'. We don't know them, we don't experience them, they don't exist, other than as a conceptualization of the 4 things listed above, i.e. as a conceptualization of experience.