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

@igm,

What I feared you would do, you did:

igm wrote:

If ordinary people i.e. those who do not wish to take on a particular religion of philosophy believe and would say ‘if pressed’ that they are permanent during this life (although their bodies and mind are constantly changing they remain the essentially the same) ..................If the self was permanent and the body is impermanent then how could it reside in the body? Also, if it is separate from the body because it is permanent but the body that surrounds it is impermanent; then how could it know or interact with the body?

Establishing "permanence" in the way you refer to it in first sentence, is NOT sufficient in establishing "permanence" in the way you refer to it in the rest of this paragraph.
In the first sentence you mean permanent in the sense of being continuous throughout life (could be dependent on a body).
In the rest of the paragraph you mean permanent in the sense of being unrestricted in time or place (could not be dependent on a body).
A clearer (and I think more intellectually honest) practice would be to use separate names for separate concepts.
Thus my previous suggestion of replacing "permanent" with "continuous" in your presumptive sentence.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

igm wrote:
So, the question is how do most people believe they themselves are? Without critical examination... many people would 'if pushed' say I was born, I live and I die, therefore I am permanent as long as I'm alive.. It's the same 'me' from birth to death.

Thanks for the clarification.
For me "permanent" does not usually imply a condition that is dependent on life-span. Adding the phrase permanent may be confusing if immortal is not what you mean.

igm wrote:
So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

Maybe it would be clearer if you asserted that a 'self' is something that is continuous, singular and autonomous.

Doesn't 'continuous have the same problem? Perhaps the term 'permanent' just needs to be qualified as: permanent means in the context of this discussion: the general notion that people have that it's the same person who is born, lives and dies and speculations about what happens after death are not a requirement in this context? So, people generally believe during i.e. ‘this life’, that they are permanent until they die, if they are not influenced by ideas put forward by religion or philosophy.

They of course understand that their bodies change and also their thoughts and emotions etc. but if they are not interested in thinking more deeply they just think or have the feeling that they are permanent until they die.

What do you think? I just want a working basis that will enable people to go through and see if any of these three can be found when one examines phenomena.

I think that you are trying to slip in the term permanent without having to establish it as following naturally from a notion of self.
I think that you are grouping it along with singular and autonomous which do follow from the notion of a self in an effort to imply that permanence also follows naturally.
I am worried that you are perpetuating this confusion so that you can latter imply that an immortal 'self' follows naturally from a notion of a self.

If your future intent is to establish that 'self' is everlasting, I think you need to look more closely into a way of divorcing 'self' from the strictures of time.

This is not my intention. I do not believe there is anything that is 'everlasting'. If you prefer 'continuous' then that's fine with me. I'm just trying to get to the point where we can actually start looking for the 'self' based on its agreed characteristics... nothing more.

1 Reply

@igm,

Great. Thanks.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt,

I'm trying to follow this thing...and you just agreed to something I am not sure about. Perhaps you can fill me in:

When igm said:

Quote:

…where we can actually start looking for the 'self' based on its agreed characteristics...

who are we saying is going the “agreeing?”

I'd ask him, but he seems to be ignoring my comments and I think it would be rude on my part to be pushy.

1 Reply

@igm,

thanks

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Great. Thanks.

Can you put together something which shows that the existence of a 'truly existent self' is untenable based on our agreed list of characteristics that a truly existent self would need to be such a thing?

Or can we go with:

So, in our search for the 'self' we have to discount a person's name because it is an arbitrary linguist designation. If we change our name then the 'self' is not changed.

If ordinary people i.e. those who do not wish to take on a particular religion of philosophy believe and would say ‘if pressed’ that they are continuous during this life (although their bodies and mind are constantly changing they remain the essentially the same) and they are singular (they think ‘I am’ not ‘we are’ in relation to themselves) and autonomous (they believe that they can decide free from other conditions to do this or that or not do this or that).Then let’s have a simple look for these attributes these characteristics. There are many other ways to look but these are three of them:

If the self was continuous and the body is impermanent then how could it reside in the body? Also, if it is separate from the body because it is continuous but the body that surrounds it is impermanent; then how could it know or interact with the body?

If it is singular that would make it 'partless' but everything we examine has parts so there is no evidence for 'partless' phenomena. For example every object has directions: north, south, east and west and each of these directions e.g. north has also got directions north, south, east and west etc. ad infinitum. The body is made from countless parts.

We can't find any 'autonomous' phenomena because if a certain set of causes and conditions are present then the effect 'must' arise e.g. if there is a healthy seed and moisture, warmth, light, air and soil and they come together in the correct way for the correct amount of time then there 'will' arise a shoot. So, wherever we look we can't find any phenomena that are autonomous. The body ‘works’ without the need for conscious thought e.g. heartbeat, breathing etc. etc. etc.

If the self requires the characteristics of being continuous, singular and autonomous where is the evidence for this...? No evidence can be found. To rely on a unsubstantiated belief in a truly existent self is unnecessary, and leads to being less happy than if we keep an 'open mind' about this and practice remaining free from the extreme of believing in a truly existent self when there is no evidence for one.

Any thoughts, anyone i.e. how can a truly existent self really be other than a figment of the imagination of the interdependence of a body and/or mind that lacks a truly existent self?

2 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

If the self was continuous and the body is impermanent then how could it reside in the body?

Ig I'm not sure what "continuous" means but surely the soul, that is everything about you except your body, qualifies

However I sort of see what you mean. Surely soul encompasses body and so my assertion is dualistic. Part of the problem however I'm sure is only semantic

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

when perrhaps we should be looking beyond that, in that, if we are all one single conscious, we can still find the self in both our body and mind, separately, and jointly, as bodily and spiritual manifestations of a part of the whole?

i know i kind of touched on this before i even got started lol... but i'm starting to see (from my point of view at least) where it all comes together.

and again science may be able to back this up.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Dale, I'm trying to get us all to look for the 'self' based on some agreed characteristics, nothing deeper than that. If we can agree what we are looking for and we can't find a way that the 'self' could have the needed characteristics then we can become more confident that there isn't one.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

Quote:
So when we set out to look for the' self' we look for anything that is within our body/mind that is permanent, singular and autonomous.

when perrhaps we should be looking beyond that, in that, if we are all one single conscious, we can still find the self in both our body and mind, separately, and jointly, as bodily and spiritual manifestations of a part of the whole?

i know i kind of touched on this before i even got started lol... but i'm starting to see (from my point of view at least) where it all comes together.

and again science may be able to back this up.

Berty, I'm glad it's making you examine the subject... like you said that is what's actually important. But...

I'm trying to get us all to look for the 'self' based on some agreed characteristics, nothing deeper than that. If we can agree what we are looking for and we can't find a way that the 'self' could have the needed characteristics then we can become more confident that there isn't one.

2 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

if we are all one single conscious, we can still find the self…...as bodily and spiritual manifestations of a part of the whole?

I think Berty the typical pantheist might respond yes we can but it's not easy

Unfortunately it leans to the abstract, in the matter of its existence requiring the participant to draw a line

While some of us can entertain the idea that She is the ultimate, that is, It or All, then self or soul on that scale is maybe just to Her left

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Are you presuming that someone in an 'awakened' state is unable to publish books?

they must be when the books they publish which claim that

Code:it is that unawakened self which gets involved in futile intellectual arguments

the book itself is, in his own terms, a futile intellectual arguement.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If the self was permanent and the body is impermanent then how could it reside in the body? Also, if it is separate from the body because it is permanent but the body that surrounds it is impermanent; then how could it know or interact with the body?

again i've barely skimmed the surface, but quantum theory could back it up...again. in theory, we are all just energy, and energy never dies, it just changes state, moving on to something new. now we come to "the last breath", and out of body experiences. as we know, these are widely reported.

could they be our "spirit" or "part of our energy"? we float away from our body, and as we separate we let out our last breath? i did read some stuff about the quantum mind, and the quantum soul, and maybe that could explain how it resides in the body. when the body dies, the energy moves on.

but at the same time i'ts not seperate from the body, because all energy essentially interacts with all energy, all the time. they are just different kinds of energy, or different frequencies rather. it could therefore interact with the body because it is the body. it is everything.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

You lost me there, Berty. Out of body experiences are a state of mind that is not provable. The mind is not that reliable a biological organ.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I'm trying to get us all to look for the 'self' based on some agreed characteristics, nothing deeper than that. If we can agree what we are looking for and we can't find a way that the 'self' could have the needed characteristics then we can become more confident that there isn't one.

maybe those characteristics are frequencies?

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Unfortunately it leans to the abstract, in the matter of its existence requiring the participant to draw a line

again if it's all about energy and frequencies, there doesn't need to be a line?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

i never said anything was provable lol.

but lets face it, on a science level, IF the soul or whatever you want to call it exists, it must be explainable with maths. i'm not saying out of body experiences are real, it was a bad example, but the last breath is a recorded phenomenomenomena.

*edit: oops, sorry all, was replying to posts as i read them, didn't realise i'd spammed so much, and i sound like im turning into a quantum maniac. imagine my last 4 or five posts as being just one big post Razz

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Matt,
I'm trying to follow this thing...and you just agreed to something I am not sure about. Perhaps you can fill me in:
When igm said:

Quote:
…where we can actually start looking for the 'self' based on its agreed characteristics...

who are we saying is going the “agreeing?”
I'd ask him, but he seems to be ignoring my comments and I think it would be rude on my part to be pushy.

My understanding is that igm wants to explore the implications of the concept of 'self', by hypothetically granting its truth and then exploring those implications.
The recent back and forth was regarding what seems to me a very "fluid" notion of permanence.
I asked for a distinction between continuous phenomena and permanent phenomena to be made explicit. By using separate words for each (not to use the term "permanent" to describe both.
I think what is agreed to are the conventions that the quality of something persisting (perhaps only over a finite interval) will be referred to as continuous, and that the quality of something persisting throughout all time will be referred to as permanent.

1 Reply

@igm,

permanent is too vague. until when? what of the spirit, if mind can separate from body when the body expires?
singular, yes, in a whole made of parts, just as my whole made of parts could be part of an even bigger whole.
autonomous? we like to think we are. but thats unanswerable for now, so not much use as a characteristic.

i don't know what to suggest, mind you. but i'd only go with singular with added caveats.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

Quote:
Are you presuming that someone in an 'awakened' state is unable to publish books?

they must be when the books they publish which claim that

Code:it is that unawakened self which gets involved in futile intellectual arguments

the book itself is, in his own terms, a futile intellectual arguement.

It's funny, and paradoxical.
But that is not actually the content of the book.
That was an interjection (I think by Fresco) meant at humor.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know