Know thy self.

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The old saw that we all are three people is still reliable. We are:
1) The person we believe ourselves to be
2) The person others think we are
3) The person we are.

1 is a complicated issue.
3 is often unknown.

2...I've come across this before, about about 15 years ago. I thought it odd then, but couldn't explain why. These days, I find this concept ludicrous. We most certainly are NOT what other people think we are...they see their perception of us, and that is what they see 'their perception'. If I do something I think will help someone (with good intention) and it goes wrong... and another interprets it as me being an inconsiderate ass...am I an inconsiderat ass? Not at all, I'm a person with good intentions to help, who's actions didn't work out the way I had hoped.

The thing is, because we deceive ourselves so much...and going by the rule that our life 'attracts/constructs' attracts what we deserve (if we are friendly we attract friendly, if a lowlife we attract lowlifes, if goal oriented we attract goal oriented people etc etc)...we can see a reflection of ourselves in how other people react to us, and who it is that are close to us in our lives.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I hear what you're saying but I have a somewhat different perspective. I agree that other people do not have the ability to define or dictate who we are. Those who presume to judge us will almost always get it wrong at least in part, if not in whole, especially when they do so out of self-professed superiority or envy or pettiness or meanness or a bully syndrome. Such defines who they are and not who we are.

But what if you are an inconsiderate ass when in your mind you are doing absolutely the right thing. The other person may accurately see that you're being an inconsiderate ass. You may feel wrong and out of place when others are observing you as an interesting-looking person they would like to get to know. You may think you look absolutely great in your new duds and feel terrific while your friend sees that they make your butt look big enough to have its own zipcode. Whether we are proud when we should be more humble or whether we feel inferior when others see us as magnificent, there will always be some who see a part of us better than we can see ourselves.

And there will be much that we know of ourselves that others cannot see or do not wish to acknowledge.

And I think we all will surprise ourselves from time to time with sudden insights or memories or abilities that we didn't know about ourselves before. Self-discovery is an on-going process. (Unless we are Walt in "Gran Torino")

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

After understanding that the self is not a passive observer of it's surroundings, but rather an active part of the experience that is being observed, it is only a short step to the realization that all observation is self observation.

I think it is a step beyond that. "Self Observation" implies a transcendent vantage point from which one of many potential observational modes (selves) is understood. It is spectator mode distinct from a mere "after the fact" evaluation like "I was right/wrong in my observation of X"....rather, it is a concurrent understanding of the event that "self A" and "X" are co-existent and co-defined. C0ntrary to posts above, there are no value judgements involved.

1 Reply

Cyracuz..an example.

I have just walked through my hallway and of the countless items a simplistic "I" could have observed" was "a table". Self observation was an awareness that that I and that table were inextricably linked by an impending action of me having to move that table elsewhere. I-ness and table-ness were co-existent and that is the case for all "I's" and all "things".

0 Replies

@fresco,

Fresco, I am not sure if I agree that self can trancend itself in observation. It can merely fracture itself and examine itself from many angles. But self is dishonest and deceptive, since pure self observation so easily becomes a case of the self manufacturing data about itself. Only in interaction with all it defines as not self can anything be learned about the self, by observing how it interfaces with it's surroundings.

vikorr

You are right in that there are many assumptions connected to observation. You see me pick up a pen, but that is your version of what happened. Maybe it wasn't a pen, maybe it was a laser pointer or a thermometer or something else. If you didn't see anymore of what happened the truth as far as you are concerned would be that i picked up a pen, regardless of what it actually was. So the observation is actually colored by you, as you put it.

0 Replies

Quote:

But what if you are an inconsiderate ass when in your mind you are doing absolutely the right thing. The other person may accurately see that you're being an inconsiderate ass.

Everyone justifies their actions to themselves. Everyone also does what they think is best (usually for themselves) at any given point in time. The observer doesn't see the reasoning, but only sees the action, and deducts reasoning from that...which reasoning is innevitably wrong. However, the effect our actions have on others...that is where the observor has the right of it.

What you are saying is not 'this is who you are', but 'this is the effect you have on me' or 'this is my judgement of the effect you have on (someone dear to the observor)', and I don't like it.

Quote:

C0ntrary to posts above, there are no value judgements involved.

Fresco, technically you are correct, but as a topic subject many words and concepts tend to get shortened. Self observation in the form of observing oneself for the purpose of learning and growing - that process innevitably involves a subjective judgement. It may also stem from observation meaning 'looking at something' and 'verbalising a judgement (ie making an observation)'

Quote:

You are right in that there are many assumptions connected to observation. You see me pick up a pen, but that is your version of what happened. Maybe it wasn't a pen, maybe it was a laser pointer or a thermometer or something else. If you didn't see anymore of what happened the truth as far as you are concerned would be that i picked up a pen, regardless of what it actually was. So the observation is actually colored by you, as you put it.

Cyracuz, in your example, what I saw was distorted not by my mind, but my my sight (say for eg. due to distance) , or something physical that interfered with my sight (heatwave, sun in the eyes, or opaque object etc). The observation of the vague object you picked up still stands as pure observation.

Of course in your example, I could just express curiosity like "I wonder what he picked up. It looked like a pen".

But to follow your example, what changes is the 'association' I make in my mind as to what that object is. I make a 'judgement' on what that object is, based on information I have (the vague pen like object not quite clearly seen in your hand, and perhaps the way you hold it, and where you hold it). The visual observations are still just that - observations.

0 Replies

Vikorr and Cyracuz,

My "vantage point" is not "self". It is a position from which "selves" are seen as being evoked by context. There is no "self" except as one pole of an observation. There is no "progress" to be made in "self" per se, there is only a possible "transcendence of self" which indicates that "self as a controlling actor" is illusory.

This view is of course antithetical to our normal cognitive drives to "control" or "progress" and will be resisted. But those who write from this viewpoint ask the key question "What evidence is there for the progress of civilization (relationships) in general irrespective of material advancement?". If anything, materialiality has exacerbated the worst aspects of our simplistic cognitive functioning based on "selves".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

My "vantage point" is not "self". It is a position from which "selves" are seen as being evoked by context. There is no "self" except as one pole of an observation. There is no "progress" to be made in "self" per se, there is only a possible "transcendence of self" which indicates that "self as a controlling actor" is illusory.

Fresco, you are playing word games with definitions. I understand that's inevitable in this sort discussion, yet :

-what would you call the 'entity' that makes the observation? (perhaps your 'vantage point', but what does that mean, if not self)

-and what does that entity consist of?

As for no progress in self...who does 'self' (or whatever you would call it) interact with the world? Language itself takes skill (language is the verbal expression of concepts), and can be improved. Concepts can be very difficult to put into words. I'm guessing that you believe physical skill development isn't related to 'self'? (physical skills often benefit from self observation). Self in terms of love / emotions etc I can see a purpose for 'transcendence'.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Vikorr,

Besides much "esoteric philosophy" there is a body of literature which includes Heiddegar, Dennett, and Maturana which sees "self" a social construction associated largely with language aquisition. A thorough answer to your point would require going into at least these three, and may even involve and exploration of the vast literature on "consciousness studies". (See e.g. Chalmers). Obviously I can only point you in those directions from here, but in answer to your final point about "love" allow me to quote J. Krishnamurti who simply wrote:

Quote:

Where the self is, love is not.

This is an experiential observation from "the vantage point".

0 Replies

Fresco

I understand your vantage point of transcendence of self. My objection is that this vantage point is merely yet another fraction or variation of self, evoked by the context needed to pursue it's intention.
Since self is, as you say, evoked by context, examining self as a complete unit in its own right seems pointless to me. There is perhaps much to be learned from examining different variations of selves in contrast to eachother, as is the function of your vantage point, if I understand you correctly. But I am not sure I trust myself not to decieve me, since the "transcended self" would be in complete control of the environment it would observe. How can I then be sure of the truth of my observatons?
As I see it, what self is contrasted against doesn't matter. As long as you can be mindful of the changes to self according to changes in the environment, all observation is self observation.

Vikorr

Don't you think that the fact that you are able to modify the recount of the observation (initially that I picked up a pen) to the extent you do above, is some indication of how much of that observation was generated by you as an observer?
And also, as the modifications are made, can you see how the observing self changes?
It starts simple, self in context to me and my pen. Then it's self vs me and an object, but also in context to distance, light, and other factors you involve to explain why you thought I picked up a pen when it was in fact something entirely different.

In my opinion, self observation is like breathing; it gets harder when you do it consciously.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz,

Quote:

Don't you think that the fact that you are able to modify the recount of the observation (initially that I picked up a pen) to the extent you do above, is some indication of how much of that observation was generated by you as an observer?

Not at all. In point of fact, you modified my original statement 'I saw something' and changed it to 'but what if it is not what you saw, and you assumed it is what you saw'. A visual observation is pure observation...an assumption about a visual observation is an assumption - they are two different things. My 'modification' is not modification, but an attempt to explain the difference. The original statement still stands.

Fresco, I personally don't think the 'self' is all that difficult to explain. It is the whole of the person. Understanding that whole is a whole different kettle of fish, and I'm not sure that anyone ever achieves it. Your 'transcendence' is simply understanding one aspect (if a very important aspect) of self.

And I'm with Cyracuz on this one, as I've mentioned it before - your understanding of self comes from self. You can't do away with self, because the part of you that 'does away with self' is a part of your self (going by the definition that self is the whole of you). As I've said previously, I find the many concepts of self useful tools for self understanding, but ultimately that's all they are - tools. Self is the whole.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Vikorr and Cyracuz,

There is a certain quality of experience familiar to some meditators in which a "personal self" is dissipated and what remains is a "holistic" experience. Religionists tend to view such episodes as moments of "epiphany" or "enlightenment", but the position is perhaps better described by the non-religious etc as " a eureka moment.". Now the claim is, by those who have had such experiences, that "selves" can be momentarily seen "for what they are". But the problem is that such moments are ineffable...i.e. unexpressable in "language" which of course would require the presence of "self" ( as communicator) in order to operate. For the sceptics this point is seen as a good "escape clause" but those who are sceptical have never had the experience, yet those who have know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course, for everyday purposes we are all "stuck with" concepts of "self" which like "things" appear to have relative permanence in certain contexts. But it is incumbent on those who claim to be discussing "philosophy" that such common sense notions are challenged.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Hi Fresco,

In fact I have little to no doubt that such an experience is possible. In what you said, it's the conclusion (of the 'holistic experience') that would be my issue. As I said - the experience can only ever be part of the whole of the person. If say Astral Projection was possible (and I have no idea if it is or not), despite it being an 'out of body experience', it's still done by something that is 'part of the whole person'.

That said, I'm familiar enough with language being incapable of expressing concepts/experiences. I also follow your reasoning about 'we are stuck with language when having to explain it' being a problem.

I wouldn't say I'm skeptical that you've had experiences. What I'm skeptical about is the conclusion you've drawn that self doesn't exist (by my definition that's impossible)....though it may be that we are only playing definition games.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

"Selves" exist but only in relationship to "things" (including other "selves")

From a biological view, an organism brings forth "a world" by virtue of two way exchanges across a boundary membrane. One of the life processes of a language using organism is "description" which serves to organize/control its interactive processes in terms of "words". These imply relatively permanent states thereby allowing for concept ofcontrol in terms of prediction. As some have pointed out "self" is one of those words to which undue permanence is ascribed, perhaps due to our societal status as a "responsible entity" embodied in "one's name". However simplistic observation of internal dialogue reveals that no such unity of self exists except perhaps in the form of a conditioned modus vivendi which is subservient to the functioning of "social groups", just as a blood cell is subservient to the body. In short language the social currency creates "things" including "selves" which promote the operation of "the human hive".

0 Replies

Vikorr, I do not agree that I modified your observation. I challenged it, and you modified it. To me this is evidence that as long as any observation is understood by a self drawing on its own contents to make sense of the experience, it is partly of that self's own making.

Fresco

I understand what you are saying. I have experienced such moments. I find it curious that the experiences that reveal the most about ourselves are the ones in which we "forget" to be aware of our own presence..

0 Replies

Quote:

In short language the social currency creates "things" including "selves" which promote the operation of "the human hive".

Fresco, I have no issue with any of your post (I rather agree), up until the above quote - the conclusion drawn from your post. Language does affect and create certain things, including aspects of ones self, but does not, and cannot form the whole self. Nor is it the whole of self.

Quote:

Vikorr, I do not agree that I modified your observation. I challenged it, and you modified it. To me this is evidence that as long as any observation is understood by a self drawing on its own contents to make sense of the experience, it is partly of that self's own making.

Cyracuz, this is where you keep reading my post wrong...I’ve separated observation and understanding, you’ve combined them (which is where I'm saying you modified it). Pure observation is just that " observation. The passing of a judgement on ones observation is subjective. The interpretation/understanding of the observation could be subjective (if the sight isn't clear and you take a guess).

Your joining of the observation to a guess about the observation is why you think I've modified my post...which post which was simply me coming from a different angle to explain the same the difference between your post and mine(btw, aside from that explaination, you do understand that many single concepts can have multiple aspects, or affect different circumstances differently?). Again, I've made no modification to my original statement, which still stands.

Lets make it clearer, instead of a pen, I see a car driving towards me. I observe 'a car driving towards me'. That is pure observation.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I see your point vikorr.
But I do not believe it is possible to separate an observation and the understanding of it. They are the very same thing, as I see it.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

I observe 'a car driving towards me'.

Think about this.....there is no I during the observation process itself ...only in the report of the observation !( As Heideggar points out, during a process of hammering there is no "self" or "hammer" consciously present...no differential boundary... unless the process is interrupted .... if you hit your hand say)
When you talk about "the whole I" you are in the mode of an external spectator commenting on the operation of an organism and wrongly assigning "self awareness" to all processes of that organism. But "self/self awareness" is not always present in humans and thought to be never there in most animals. Like animals, much of human living is conducted on automatic pilot with no "self" present. Self is evoked in the communicator mode (which includes self with self)

0 Replies

Quote:

But I do not believe it is possible to separate an observation and the understanding of it. They are the very same thing, as I see it.

I’m presuming you mean understanding as in subjective understanding, rather than an understanding of the images (seeing a car driving towards me).
I would say that for things that directly affect us (say the car kept coming towards me, such that if I didn’t move out of the road it would run me over), then you are correct. But say I’m on the far side of a busy, protected freeway...I see cars driving past me, but there is no need for subjective interpretation of the observation, for their actions do not directly affect me.

In the same way, we observe things every day that have no bearing on us.
Of course, in ‘observing’ (in this case hearing) what people say (and seeing their body language), we are constantly interpreting the subjective.

Quote:

Think about this.....there is no I during the observation process itself ...only in the report of the observation !( As Heideggar points out, during a process of hammering there is no "self" or "hammer" consciously present...no differential boundary... unless the process is interrupted .... if you hit your hand say)

We disagree. 'I' is the same as 'self' - the whole person. Say something cut 'me'. 'Me' is the same as 'I' and 'self'. My physical body was cut, and in same manner - in this case 'observation' - my physical body observed - I observed. Going further along your assertion - the mind reported. The mind is also part of my physical body - part of my brain. The only way to argue that it is more than the brain, is to argue that the mind is part physical, and part spiritual (or something else), but again "I" am the whole - body, mind, and spirit.

"I" don't see how 'I' can separate mayself from my spirit, or from my mind, or from my body.

A person belief of mine, though it's likely to exist elsewhere (I just don't know where) is : The body affects the mind/spirit, the spirit affects the mind/body, the mind affects the body/spirit.

Btw, Heideggar you realise would be in opposition to Cyracuz's stance?

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Vikorr,

You are tahing an anthropocentric view.

It is not a question of separating the" self" from the "body". I am talking about "self" as an epiphenomenon of "life"....a socio-linguistically dependent cognitive construct as opposed to an originator of cognition. In this way I can ascribe "cognition" to non linguistic animals without ascribing the concept of "self" to them.

To argue as you seem to do, with "self" as axiomatic, seems to reflect the biblical image of a unique "free-willed creature". Yet what allows ths appearance of "free-will" is in fact the human capacity for language which enables "thought" and "forward planning" in place of action. (Note the psychological definition of "intelligence" as "the capacity to delay a respnse").

0 Replies

Know thy self.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know