The point being made is about the questionable continuity of what we call "self". Nobody is going to deny that we assume self identity to be continuous for everyday purposes, any more than we assume the tree of yesterday is the same as today. But atoms and molecules of trees and bodies are in constant flux. Hence "sameness" is about "functionality" which is related to its context. In other words "identity" is never independent of functional scenarios. Perhaps the picture of the defense lawyer who argues that his client was "not in his right mind" underscores the point.
Yes, and it is probably the case that we as a species cannot function without the illusion of a continuous and substantial "self". C.I., calls the perspective from which one sees continuity between subject and object ("in here" and "out there") as "nuts", failing to appreciate the "schizoid" nature of the normal sense of one's being separate from and surrounded by the World. I would not say that C.I. is insane ("nuts") because of that perspective--heavens, I share it most of the time. But I might call it a state of UNsanity to diferrentiate it from INsanity. I think of INsanity and UNsanity as pertaining to clinical and spiritual considerations respectively.
What you're saying that there is a possibility that nature isn't in flux, and therefore everything will be the same and "functional." That's a foolish assumption when talking about philosophy.
That's not philosophy, that's imagination without the possibility that "sameness" exists for our minds to function. We "see" change all the time; but humans are able to comprehend them in ways that allows us to function in some rational way.
What you're saying that there is a possibility that nature isn't in flux, and therefore everything will be the same and "functional." That's a foolish assumption when talking about philosophy.
No. I'm saying nothing of the sort. Refer to JLN's answer.
But atoms and molecules of trees and bodies are in constant flux. Hence "sameness" is about "functionality" which is related to its context. In other words "identity" is never independent of functional scenarios. Perhaps the picture of the defense lawyer who argues that his client was "not in his right mind" underscores the point.
You guys talk about "illusion" as if it's the basis for our reality. No such thing; I do what I please while I'm still able to physically and mentally.
What are you doing on a2k if you are living in an illusion?
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Mon 19 Nov, 2012 12:45 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Which means that we attribute "sameness" to those parts of the flux we deem to be maintaining a particular function with respect to human needs, despite their ephemeral constituents. A simple example would be "a specific water wave" vis-a-vis a surfer. That particles of that "wave" are changing from moment to moment, and it is only the utility of structure relative to a surfers structure and purpose which objectifies it. And the argument is that what is true for a wave is true for "the self" whether we are comfortable with such a concept or not !
This prompts me to re-iterate Gurdjieff's celebrated comments on "self".
Quote:
One of man’s important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I..... His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I".
Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "I"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "I". And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.
You don't get it. This is not about semantics or logic = its about those experiences we call "self observation"...the non-judgmental recognition of our mental inconsistencies which can be as diverse as Jekyll and Hyde, and which can be either spontaneous or triggered by situational variables.
You're talking about "human nature." It's unpredictable depending on many variables that includes, but not limited to, biology, environment, culture, religion, politics, parents, family, friends, experience, situation, perception, etc., etc., etc. So, what's your point?
We also don't know when we are going to die. That's all part and parcel of what we call "our" life.
As I suspected ! If you had, you would know what JLN, Heidegger, Gurdjieff and me (one of "me" anyway) are talking about.
I tell you what, next time you are "having an argument with yourself" see if you can get that other one who is watching to get back to me on this issue.
Out of the multitude of choices I have, I do what I want. There's no "argument" - just a selection process which at the time seems my best option from my current awareness of the choices.
Since man is so confused about the choices we have in what we do, we have sent a probe to Mars with high tech equipment - and to send pictures back to earth. We now have technology that we can communicate all over this planet instantly. We can fly half way around the world in one day; all because man doesn't know how to direct our lives. We argue with ourselves too often to accomplish all the medical drugs and technologies that have helped in prolonging our lives.
WE are one confused species - without the ability to do too much, because we always have arguments with ourselves.
The disunity of self is a characterized by those common experiences involving internal conversations... subsequent actions which ignore internal decisions...criticizing oneself after incidents with "should have"....forgetting why we went upstairs because of intervening internal dialogue....etc,....and of course half remembered bizarre dreams which affect our waking mood. If you are claiming that you have never have such experiences, you are somewhat unusual to say the least !
Insofar as your generalities about "man" are relevant, it has been argued that the "self" is a social concept acquired via language, and it is a reflection or microcosm of its society (i.e. a "bottom down" view).
