What Constitutes the Self?

This reminds me of some of the lesser known teachings of Buddha (if my memory serves me correctly), where he elaborated on the details of life's incarnation in the physical world. It had to do with the different stages of desire which lead to our human life. Starting out at something like a point of origin, you have the state of being/non-being which desires, and receives nothing; it is, and it is not, and this is enlightenment. The next state towards incarnation in the physical world is the result of some basic desire for input. This is the quick downfall which leads to a greater desire for input, and thus output.

Like you say, the "ability to experience" may remain useless potential, as in the enlightened state. If we knew the realities of every state, we may conclude, like Buddha, that the useless state is the best. And if you consider this world, it essentially consists of an infinite variety of inputs and outputs. I can't think of anything other than the theoretical which runs without this principle. When we are born, it is similar to plugging a machine into a grid and letting it run for a few years. Then we burn out, and the input and output cease. Here, according to Buddha, we would either reach the enlightened state, or repeat the cycle ad infinitum, taking on various different forms, according to our levels of attachment to the input/output existence.

pangloss,

I think the supression of all desire is not really a healthy attitude, and is itself a desire to escape suffering. If you deny object you are denying what is in fact part of you, Pain and suffering are a part of there being life at all--life is struggle, and as Nietzsche said, it requires a sacred yes. Life is short and brutal, but it can be sublime as well. Schopenhauer called this essence which throws up life forms the blind will, and the world, apparent reality I take it, is this wills representation. I could accept Schopenhaurer's blind will, as that self which throws up all life forms, it is mindless, anonymous and has limitless manifestations.

hey boagie,

I agree with you that repressing all desire is not a good thing, and that is the main reason that a lot of the eastern philosophies found in buddhism and hinduism turned me off a while back, and I have not pursued it more thoroughly. The Buddha though did advocate the "middle path" which had to do with finding a happy medium between completely destroying the ego via asceticism, and engaging in unrestrained pursuit of self-satisfaction, though the main argument for reaching enlightenment was, as you said, to escape the inherent suffering of life.

Overall, the philosophies of the east still advocate more detachment from the world in general, and more repression of desire than I would like to accept. The quote from the famous Bhagavad gita, "detachment is the highest state of man" comes to my mind, and turns me off a bit. Some people in India spend their entire lives as beggars, meditating in caves and smoking hashish, thinking that this is the way to enlightenment. I personally believe that the search for knowledge necessitates experiencing life; trying different activities and interacting with people, whether through work, reading, arts, or anything else. Desire should be repressed to the point where your will is not consumed by its grasp: moderation in all things. Desire is also what inspires passion in people, and while this can be bad, it can also lead to good things, and some of the things that are probably most worth experiencing.

I haven't read of the "blind will", but will look into it.

Pangloss,

Yes the attitude toward life is foundational to living a good life, that may seem to obvious but apparently it is not to many people. Materialism though quite natural can overtake ones life, so your considerations in that reguard are well taken. Actually many spiritual traditions are very negative about life in the here and now. Nietzsche stated that Christianity was the first nihilistic tradition devaluing the values of living in this world for the spiritually imagined world of the after life. Sometimes you will just see people that embody the right attitude towards life, they put everything into their efforts be they dangerous, they take safety precautions but, they are not hangers on. Reminds me a bit that indian war cry, " Today is a good day to die!!" Joseph Campbell once said, " I do not think people are looking for the meaning of life, they are looking for the experience of the rapture of being alive." To live an utterly safe protected existence is to be half alive. Living life with passion, unfearful, is not something a great many people manage to do. I've gotten a little off topic, sorry about that.

I can offer a psychiatrist's/psychotherapist's perspective (at least this one's). And I think that a lot of this is definitional. At root, the self seems to me to be a set of patterns (patterns of reactions, values, etc.) formed both by one's experiences as well as one's innate qualities (temperament, intelligence, etc.) These patterns (reflexes, if-then cognitions) may be consciously recognized or not. That which is conscious is one's identity which is not the same as one's true self. Much of what becomes conscious is determined by social interactions with significant others. So, one may be highly competent (the self) but have an identification, due to negative social interactions as being incompetent. I don't think that mirroring and other social interactions are the only means by which self can become conscious. I agree that self has both consistency and mutability.
The practical aspect of all of this from my perspective and line of work is that people with identifications that are highly divergent from their selves are unhappy campers driving through unchartered territory with the wrong map.
Fred

Frederick;

What would you say to taking the constitution as the elementary aspect, by that I mean temperament, given talents, propensities and the weaknesses/strengths of the consitution. Is this not what is then defined by the environmental context, one must admitt I think, that there are some context/environments that would have an unfortunate effect on any human being. What I am saying is, you have the given constitution after that, it is context defines. You've introduced something here though I have never seen introduced before, confusion as an aspect of forming identification--- was I reading you right?

Absolutely nothing. There is nothing about you or me that is distinctly you or me.

Relating this to the universals vs. particulars topic, I now think that the universal vs. particular dichotomy is completely pointless. I am not sure why and I must think this over, but there is nothing universal or particular.

I'm glad its not that easy,do other primates have this self?How do you describe the self? Is it the personality? because apes have these... is it how someone describes you? We have got to stop being egomaniacs before we can consider ourselves..Its the ability to recognise yourself for what you are and what you could be..

The self in one is the self in all, and is immutable, so says the wisdom of the Upanishads. Personality is highly mutable, greatly influence by context. I would think self is life itself, the essence of being, and as such belongs to all living things, or perhaps Schopenhauers blind will, as the essence of all things.

Boagie,
I can go with constitution. My supposition is that context can modify one's self but not override it. I'm generalizing from the examples of many such biological traits. Take for example, circadian rhythms. You can alter it to some extent with longer or shorter light cycles but it'll remain close to 24 hours.
As to the notion that confusion may be an integral part in the formation of identity, this wasn't what I had intended to say (unless my "self" was expressing this without me being conscious of it). I do suspect that tension is a driving force, though, in the development of the self (in a kind of natural selection way). Said tension may be experienced as confusion or anxiety.
Fred

Fredrick,

"My supposition is that context can modify one's self but not override it."

I think we need define terms here, to modify is not to override, in what way. One has a given constitution, and it will be molded as some properties are evoked and some supressed by the contextual environment, those qualities that cannot bend to accomadate the environment will perish, along with the organism. I guess we should keep in mind that the organism to some extent presumes a given environment, just as the lock presumes its key, the environment has written over the eons the genetic script of that constitution, so we have, like with temperature, we have a mean constitution, this is why mutation is 99% deadly, also if there be a quick change in the environment the organism then is ill adapted and will perish-----------I know, I am babbling. I think I can agree that the self is the constitution, the Buddhists were right then, there is nothing beneath that constitution, life is a condition/constitution. Perhaps we could look at it like this, the script for the constitution was written by the environment, so why do we not presume that, the environment means to play it, in the same way a song is played within the structural framework of the constitution of music, musical scales and all that? so, of all the notes possiable in said constitution, the environment is going to play a song/organism, if the environment requires certain notes not to be found in this said constitution, then the organism dies, the song/organism is aborted.

Are then constitution, self and identity points along a continuum? So too with context. There is the historical context that shaped the organism by natural selection. There is the intrauterine "context" that turned on/off selected genes. Then there are is the experience context that shapes thoughts, feelings and behaviors by operant conditioning.

I think it's reasonable to say that a general principle of psychology/psychiatry is that discordance between identity and deeper levels of one's self/constitution produces tension. These conflicts similarly can exist along a continuum from subconscious conflicts/edicts to situational frustrations.

So, then I have to ask myself the original question but from a different perspective. If one is to assist another person in actualizing their true self, how do you know what that is? I'm not a psychoanalyst but I believe that they would say that after you've sifted through all of the Sh#$% by analyzing transference you arrive closer to the pole of the continuum that is self. There is also this felt sense of resonating, sort of another sense that provides justification for the belief that I "know" the self of another.

Now who's rambling. All I can say is that this stuff is just so cool.:whoa-dude:
Fred

Fredrick,

Yes I guess things are on a continuum, difficult to say what the self might look like separated from the processes of these many contexts, perhaps it would be like the problem of subject and object, separate either and the other ceases to exist. That sense of resonating with another person in this context, could you perhaps expand upon what then is happening? Context, systems within systems within systems within, well, we get the idea. Certainly the self must be constituted of both subject and object, that is you might say, of necessity.

In asking "what constitutes the self," I think a good place to begin is sentience. If sentience is not the foundation of what constitutes the self, it is certainly a ubiquitous characteristic- which means it probably has some kind of importance.

To use some of Freud's ideas here, the results of sentience take form early on- with the recognition of pain, desire, etc. This creates awareness of causality, etc. Biological make-up and material conditions lead to level of intelligence, aesthetic tastes, morality, social skills, creativity, and so on. These also decide what god you worship, what food you eat, and who your friends are. In this manner, biological makeup (and/or a soul if I'm missing something here :-) ) and material conditions are the components that fit into sentience like pieces of a puzzle. Without all components, we have no picture- no self. Sentience alone is nothing more than sentience-- without anything to perceive, sentience is but a singular point, with no selfhood. There are many people who desire to rid themselves of the self and attain this point of singularity... but maybe this point is not an end, but a beginning.

In regard to awareness, problems of the self come to play. There are parts of the mind of which we are unaware. This means that we are not aware of all things we perceive. It is my opinion that awareness increases as we grow older, and wiser; and that awareness is the most important aspect of wisdom. Then, of course, in matters of wisdom at this fundamental level, sensitivity plays a large role as well- otherwise we will not be aware of things because we fail to perceive them in the first place.

Faun,

I would tend to agree with you, reality as we are part of it, is a relational conditon, our sentience might be called for our purposes the subject and the subject is not complete without its object. So restated the self is not bounded by a bag of skin, it is a manifestation within the context of the environment as object both being effected and affecting as a continuum. Wisdom is not increased knowledge, wisdom is in the wise use of the knowledge that you do have. Knowledge does necessarily increase with age to any important degree, though there are exceptions. " Only the philosopher strives to awaken." plato













In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote:
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness