The Philosophy of the Self.

truth
Fresco, did Whitman assert, when confronted with his contradictions, that he was many people?" I like the notion of the plurality of the self (selves). Since self is only an experience, not a thing, it is to be expected that it will reflect states of body, mood, circumstance, etc. A young man once asked me why he felt like a very different person when talking to a prostitute than when talking to a nun. He insisted that he was not being hypocritical, that he was sincerely different. Ospensky's model (from Gurgieff) explains that beautifully. Thanks for all that work. Believe me, it was worth your effort.
One can lay over this model the sociological concept of self, wherein people have different social identities or roles, depending on their goals and the varioius contexts of behavior (at work, at home, at the gym, etc.). This is one reason why some people do not like to have participants of one context meet with participants of other contexts. It puts the "actor" (as sociologists term ego in this case) in a state of "role conflict." People who know him as one role or identity see him behaving in terms of incommensurable roles in other contexts. Also, when we are known very intimately by someone close to us, it is difficult to perform a role with because he sees through it. He knows us in terms of our "real" role. This is referrred to as "role transparency." This model is one of dramaturgy, one in which the actor consciously or unconsciously PERFORMS roles, like an actor on the stage. Ospensky's model of the self comes much closer to the actual experience of people second by second.
Thanks. My stress, and that of Tywvel, I think, has been, not on the dynamics of self, but on its delusional status. But it all amounts to the same thing

fresco,
Right, not, 'man'.

If one transcends the human body (even though (apparently) it's always the case), one is more, that is, some "thing(?)' in addition to being human, unless the idea, 'human' is expanded.

********

truth
Perception, thanks for your kind remarks. I worked hard on those "essays" and feel very gratified that you worked to understand them (for whatever value they may or may not have). At least you did not jump into misunderstanding them with competitive fervor.
By the way, I wasn't sure of the meaning of Fresco's committee model of the self, so I waited until I figured it out. Then his explanation via Ouspensky, completed that task for me.

If you're just going to pretend you're too stupid to understand my post so that you can ignore what I'm saying I see no reason to elaborate.

truth
Rufio, I havn't responded because you have misunderstood almost every point I made. It might be my writing, but I don't think so. I'm tired of The Game.

You clearly said that you thought that our perception of objects as distinct was an effect of culture. If you didn't mean that, perhaps you should brush up on your language skills.

truth
Gasp! Don't be a bully; it's unbecoming.

If you think you're being bullied by people that live thousands of miles away from you, you need to get out more.

Actually one "can" be bullied, hounded etc. on the internet. Some folks on abuzz left because of it.

rufio, Sometimes words can be more harmful than physical pain. I'm surprised you are not aware of this fact.

Roofio

It is obvious you are very insecure in your beliefs and just want to be argumentative, combative and rude to cover it up-----JL has suffered your insults and rudeness with great control and aplomb but is far too nice a person to deal with someone of your ilk----Kuvaz has your number and I repost his comments so that you know what the general opinion of you is.

BTW you must be a freshman in Philosophy 101

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:06 am Post: 437500 -
rufio wrote:
Isn't a priori usually used to refer to what is in the mind prior to observation? I am not interested in minds, I am not interested in observation. All I am interested in is what exists whether there are minds or observers or not (assuming for the moment that the cat doesn't count). If you think it exists in some quantum state, back up your opinion. If you think it doesn't exist at all, back up your opinion. I'm tired of hearing about how "interesting" this is and how "naive" I am. Why don't you all just grab a cigar and go find a dusty study on the top floor of a million-dollar house with books plastered into the walls as decorative objects? That's much more like your natural habitat than a discussion forum about the free exchange of knowledge.


sorry to have gotten your panties all in a bunch little girl. bet you dont get laid too much with that attitude either, huh?

how it must hurt.

you have to go to the dictionary to find the meaning for a priori too?

a priori refers as well to those properties of substance, objects, and ideas which are true a apart from observation or experience.

it need not refer to only the mind, but of course a bright gal like you didnt know that now did you? was it too hard to read the 2nd entry in the dictionary?

you also apparently cant read very well either.

dont kid yourself, all that you are interested in is proving to others how smart you think you are, and have, as yet proven it to no one here.

in fact, you are by far the dumbest poster on this thread

i dont have to prove anything to you, either, you'll have to learn it all by yourself, just like the adults here have. but i doubt, from the paucity of your remarks that you could ever pass a graduate course in quantum mechanics.

btw i dont smoke cigars, nor live in a million dollar house, i run my own business, work for a political campaign and food bank for the poor, play the guitar and play with my dogs when i'm not reading the rants of an insufferable little child like you.

rufio you dont know **** about very much, but the rest of us can spot a phony like you a mile away.

see ya on the other side tootisie

Note that Kuvaz brought the language down to your level.


Please come back when you can show humility and respect for your SUPERIORS

JL, I'm sure words hurt just as much as physical injuries. However, the difference between the internet and real life is that on the internet, you can leave. If you don't want to explain your post and I'm actually bothering you, leave the thread. In fact, if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread, it seems the only logical thing to do.

I'm not being argumentative. I genuinely want to figure out what the hell JL is talking about. I'm trying to expland my limited knowledge, but unfortunately I'm being impeded by people who seem to be even less secure about their ideas than me - they won't even discuss them.

Actually, I am a sophomore in a logic class. I can't take philosophy classes all the time, so I'm forced to read up on my own, or discuss outside of class, which I actually find more useful.

The point of my "insults" is to goad JL into saying something intelligent. I'm not sure what Kusav was intending to acheive there, except promoting his ego. As far as I am concerned, we are all equal here - this is not a classroom, or a job. If you think you deserve my respect, prove it to me.

rufio,

You simply don't deserve the courtesy of responses from sincere posters who have spent several hours on this thread and elsewhere trying to express their views in an imperfect language.
You lack either the ability or maturity to appreciate this.

So come on - lets have the infantile rejoinder, about "our pomposity", OR lets see if you can withdraw gracefully and give us pause for the thought that there may be hope for you yet.

I can't imagine that I'd lack the ability to understand my own efforts, fresco. I know that it's tough, but if you want me to devote my time to detailed responses again, you're (collective) going to have to donate yours as well. I don't fancy talking to walls.

twyvel

In the main I concur with your overview.

The Gurdjieff system is interesting because it has much to say about everyday psychology. The "problem" is that such insights seem to derive from (or support) a weird cosmology (similar to the Kabbala), and one therefore tends to be selective in what one "takes" from the system.

Since JL is not going to respond to my post:

Social roles are superior to self, I would think - they overlay what's truly there. In some way, there's something that connects all of the social roles together into one self - isn't that the case? Otherwise we wouldn't remember different social situations. There is another consciousness that can think and feel beneath the actions and attitudes that we show others.

The cognoscenti here may have noticed that responses to this thread have themselves become exercises in "self observation" (or its absence).
JLN raised this first with his estimate of his own "enlightenment".

Since I "don't have a dog in this fight," let me attempt to address this increasingly acrimonious discourse:

rufio: Participants here (and elsewhere) have accused you of being insulting, immature, and a bully. In fact, in another thread, someone said that "you've not only engaged in faulty logic and careless reasoning, you've been rather ungracious about accepting any criticisms" -- actually, I said that, and I think those comments still retain some validity.

Nevertheless, rufio, I am encouraged to note some movement in the right direction. The bigger problem, however, is that the points that you have been raising (and the points that you desperately want others to address) are really irrelevant. You've raised objections based on epistemological, ontological, psychological, and sociological arguments, but such arguments are simply irrelevant to what are, in essence, metaphysical positions. And once its proponents made it clear that nondualism is, indeed, a metaphysical system, any non-metaphysical arguments are rendered largely moot.

Furthermore, your epistemological arguments are, to put it mildly, rather unsophisticated. Your instincts are right, but the execution is off. I suggest that you sit down and read some Descartes, Hume, and Berkeley (all of whom wrote some short works on human knowledge -- I won't recommend Kant at this early stage of your education) and acquaint yourself with some of the great questions of epistemology before you consider venturing into this territory again.

twyvel, fresco, JLNobody: You have been accused by rufio of ignoring her posts, and those accusations are, in a sense, justified. Granted, rufio may have expressed herself inappropriately as a result of her frustration at being "ignored," but hurling insults back at her in response -- while relentlessly patting each other on the back -- is no way to convince her (or a disinterested observer) that her initial accusations were unjustified.

The correct response would have been to advise rufio that her queries were, for the most part, irrelevant to the overall discussion. I think JLNobody made an attempt in this direction, but probably grew frustrated with the lack of progress. Some of the fault, however, lies with the lack of precision (and, I would add, the lack of candor) regarding the entire issue of nondualism. Had it been divulged, up front, that this entire discussion was metaphysical in nature, a lot of bytes might have been spared for more useful and enlightening debates. In that regard, I would suggest that a more suitable location for any further discussions of this topic would be in the Spirituality & Religion Forum.

perception: You came late to the debate just to fling a gratuitous insult at rufio and reproduce, in its entirety, kuvasz's wholly inexcusable, vulgar diatribe. If there is any justice in this world, you should be feeling ashamed of yourself.

Joe,

Thankyou for ( on the whole) a balanced view.

The points I would take issue with is your own need to put things into traditional philosophical boxes such as "duality" or "metaphysics" and even the suggestion of moving this to the "Spirituality and Religion" forum. My references to Wittgenstein (also cited by other celebrated commentators on esotericism) coupled with linkages to cybernetics and physics, should be sufficient to secure the current location. Also what seems to you to be "back patting" is not so much an agreement (JLN, twyvel and I disagree on much detail) but mutual encouragement in our attempts to explain ellusive concepts. Much is made of analogy in this respect, which I notice that you Joe tend to ignore in your quest for traditional categorization.

But your input is useful to me in reminding me of how I myself once was, and how I (sic) was able to move on a little.

Regards fresco.