Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No golf means more time on A2K.

Isn't it wonderful to be privileged to be second best to ******* goif.

Not that what Apisa does with the artificial extensions of his arms, a little ball and standardised holes that need to have flags in them to help the members find them is actually golf. It bears a similar sort of resemblance to the golf we see on TV as does a plastic duck in a bath to a battleship on full ahead.

The Rules of Golf start from the principle that all golfers are cheats and if caught sinning against those rules they will be banished to the outer darkness. So they generally uphold them when anybody is looking but it isn't out of honesty. It is fear of the Hell of no golf.

If it was honesty there would be no need for the rules.

Don't you just sense what a high opinion Apisa has of us?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The self or soul that a person believes they have, couldn't have come from the sperm or the ovum or the union of the two...so that is why there is no actual 'self' or 'soul' because the 'I' that is believed in, started out as someone else's sperm and ovum. The person (who apparently matures from this union of sperm and ovum) then comes to erroneously believe that they 'own' the body and mind and can will it to commit selfish acts in the name of this fictional self, soul, 'I' etc.

When this fictitious self or soul is believed in, then selfishness develops and in extreme cases, all the negative actions of this world are caused by believing this fiction, believing there really is an actual, 'I', 'me', 'self', 'soul'.

The tricky part is letting go of this dangerous belief, whilst still interacting and communicating with others for their benefit... to others, those who do, are indistinguishable from everyone else... but they are of course by definition unselfish.

2 Replies

As usual, you guys are debating with a different definition of terms. It seems to me that your definitions of self and happiness are very different.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

The self or soul that a person believes they have, couldn't have come from the sperm or the ovum or the union of the two...

Let's leave the soul out of it...and let's leave "believe" out of i t.

Why is the self that results from the union of sperm and ovum (after the gamete or zygote matures)...not a self???

Who are you to define that it cannot happen?

I have no problem with you having this "belief" or guess,...and the guess might even be correct. But you are asserting that it has to be correct...that a person born of the union of a sperm and ovum (which seems to be the most popular way of producing people)...is not actually a self.

Why the assertion?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

As usual, you guys are debating with a different definition of terms. It seems to me that your definitions of self and happiness are very different.

I suspect igm and I are talking past each other...but he arbitrarily asserts that he does not exist and neither do I. He is arbitrarily defining us as non-selves.

I am once again trying to wrap my mind around the concept.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I think Igm is agreeing that your body and social identities are real but that they are not really "yours": your subjective self is a delusion. Try to find your mind (in meditation); your failure to do so may lead you to the zen (Buddhist) state of "no-mind."

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

When this fictitious self or soul is believed in, then selfishness develops and in extreme cases, all the negative actions of this world are caused by believing this fiction, believing there really is an actual, 'I', 'me', 'self', 'soul'.

But, igm, all the positive actions are also caused by believing the fiction, and fiction it has to be for a materialist. An immaterial entity is not possible in a materialist philosophy.

Whatever one might say about the robber barons of yesteryear they did create the infrastructure of the USA from the ground up. Whether that was a positive action is a moot point in some quarters but most of us think it was.

The superego is a conditioning of the material from which the ego and the id are made of.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

The self or soul that a person believes they have, couldn't have come from the sperm or the ovum or the union of the two...

Let's leave the soul out of it...and let's leave "believe" out of i t.

Why is the self that results from the union of sperm and ovum (after the gamete or zygote matures)...not a self???

Who are you to define that it cannot happen?

I have no problem with you having this "belief" or guess,...and the guess might even be correct. But you are asserting that it has to be correct...that a person born of the union of a sperm and ovum (which seems to be the most popular way of producing people)...is not actually a self.

Why the assertion?

If you're saying the 'self' is just another word for the body then I'm okay with that but if you're saying there is something 'extra' then where did it come from and why do we say 'my body' as if we owned it?

If you're saying it is just something the brain makes up to function but is just 'made up' then I'm okay with that also.

If you're saying there is a special part of the brain that is the 'self' and is the controller of thoughts and the body then why is it needed and why is it not just seen as part of the body? If the self or soul was seen as just created by the brain or a special part of the brain in order to use language and interact, why is it not seen like that and the harm from selfishness eradicated because one knows there is actually no one to be selfish and it's just the brain's way of communicating and interacting.

I'm not asserting... I'm asking why others assert there is a self when the body is just the union of two cells belonging to the parents... if anyone owns the body then it is the parents as it is 'their' cells... but those cells divide and hey presto! those cells believe they 'own' the body... and then go on to act selfishly in the world based on that... such as murder, rape, war, stealing etc... it would be better to learn to see the 'self' and 'soul' as just something the mind or brain... made up... and live life unselfishly because... there is no self or soul as there is no evidence for the belief in such a thing... and that is not an assertion it is the absence of a belief in a self or soul for which there is no evidence.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Yes, but to make my point I'm really only stressing the negative... the positive side effects of selfishness is another issue... but the negative should be addressed by having a more realistic view of what the 'self' or 'soul' actually is (a fiction without evidence to the contrary)... because of the often catastrophic results of extreme selfishness.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I think Igm is agreeing that your body and social identities are real but that they are not really "yours": your subjective self is a delusion. Try to find your mind (in meditation); your failure to do so may lead you to the zen (Buddhist) state of "no-mind."

Thank you, JL...but how do you know it is I who am deluded...that the "subjective self is a delusion."

Is it not possible that you good people may be the ones deluding yourselves?

If you are saying that the "self" has to be a delusion...how do you come to this...other than through the religion of "mediation?"

0 Replies

@igm,

I think that the sense of self is intuitive and cannot be reasoned away.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Yes, but to make my point I'm really only stressing the negative... the positive side effects of selfishness is another issue... but the negative should be addressed by having a more realistic view of what the 'self' or 'soul' actually is (a fiction without evidence to the contrary)... because of the often catastrophic results of extreme selfishness.

Ok. I accept your premise. Where does this selfishness come from, why? Is it not a function of 'self' preservation? Survival? Is it not an instinct. If so, where do instincts come from?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

I believe instinct is simply "survival." The simplest cells survive through evolution.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's the result, survival. Buts what's the motivation? It's more than learned behavior? Is there knowledge passed down with DNA?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I agree: the sense of self IS intuitive and cannot be reasoned away. If falls away with careful and persistent inspection (meditation). This falling away is the result of refined intuition, not logic. That's why it is SO difficult, indeed impossible, to argue the case for Buddhism.

1 Reply

To my view there is nothing to argue for...even in the case of justifying such position with a plethora of several selfs on which none is in total control the reasoning does not displace "perspectivism" in the first person. Simply put there is no "experiencing" without it !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I dreamed that I was getting out of bed this morning and I looked at the clock which showed 5 to 12 and what woke me from the dream was a voice shouting--Cone on--its nearly 10 o'clock.

Was that an experience of a not-self?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

Motivation is inherent in our biology to survive.

If one is without food or water, what do you think happens? They look for food and water; survival is paramount. They end up eating grass or whatever is available, and as for drinking water, many drink polluted water, because that's all they have.

All else doesn't matter.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I agree: the sense of self IS intuitive and cannot be reasoned away. If falls away with careful and persistent inspection (meditation). This falling away is the result of refined intuition, not logic. That's why it is SO difficult, indeed impossible, to argue the case for Buddhism.

And there is no chance whatsoever, JL, that people who do this meditating are just themselves with this "there is no self" stuff. In other words, the people who are arguing the other side of the issue HAVE TO BE WRONG?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If the people "arguing the other side" find their selves or minds as agents of action then, to that extent, they will see the "mushin" or no-mind point of view to be wrong; but when they can no longer find their mind they will realize that they were deluded. There's nothing to argue about.
By the way, we conventionally use the phrase "losing one's mind" to indicate something bad. From the zen perspective there's no mind to lose. And that's "good" for when you realize yourmushin you also realize that since there is no "thing" (i.e., mind, self, ego) inside you, you are the world, the world of sensations or experiences that comprise your worldview. You are your experiences; they do not happen to some thing within you. This realization of unity with the world is, eveyone who has the perspective agrees, a "good".

3 Replies

Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know