Inflate or destroy self?

I would like to hope we can get beyond this posturing of dichotomies...mind versus brain...single vs multiple selves....self vs no-self and of course Frank's turgid.... knowing vs guessing.

The point is, a question has been raised about "self destruction" ,the meaning of which (like all terms) is embedded in the context of its usage. The various analyses and views on the word "self" which I have suggested merely serve as angles on interpretation such that a Buddhist context would be different to a one involved with a social construction of reality.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Evidently, these different views of the self have implications on the question. Those who believe there's no self believe it cannot be destructed. Those who emphasize its fragmentary nature may think it advantageous to break down the "illusion of a unitary self", while those who consider that unity or coherence are important (e.g. that there is a need for a reconciliation of diverging selves) may argue that destroying the super-self (or not allowing for the re-conciliating dialogue) leads to schizophrenia, a dangerous mental disorder. I am in the latter category.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Multiple personality disorder is not Schizophrenia...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

One diagnosis of schizophrenia is based on the inability of the therapist to identify with the "rationality" of the patient. ( I am not talking about the disorder commonly termed "multiple personalities" which can be understood as a variation discussed above). From a Heideggarian point of view, "self" (dasein) and its "focal objects" are co-existent and co-extensive. On this basis, what for a normal person is "a lamp to read by" for a schizohrenic might be " a device for picking up and transmitting his thoughts to the CIA". Thus the schizophrenic "self" is sustained by, and indulges in construction of, a world consistent with what is called his "paranoia" and this renders him socially aberrent (in Western culture).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm, Fresco...

...you both seem very happy with your religion. Stick with the guesses.

f.

How do you know that?

How do I know what?

What you wrote... see blue text... above.

How do I know that you both seem very happy with your religion?

Because you both do seem very happy with your religion.

"Stick with your guesses" is a suggestion.

How do I know it is a suggestion?

Because I made the suggestion.

You really couldn't figure all that out?

You missed out how you 'know' we are guessing... i.e. the most important part.. how do you know I'm guessing?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
You gotta ask igm or Fresco. They are sure no "self" exists...or some form of that.

LOL... For someone who does not truly exist, igm was quite pissed at me lately.

It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.

How do you 'know' it's a guess?

I certainly is POSSIBLE.

Are you suggesting it is POSSIBLE...because I would never disagree with that?

I respectfully suggest that you are suggesting that it is so...that there is no self.

That is an interesting guess, igm...but it is just a guess.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.

Even deeper: ask yourself -- or whatever postures as it -- who is doing the imagining...

No one it's all the play of reality... a non-dual reality.... that can appear as dualistic. Eventually the term non-dual is itself discarded as a boat is discarded once it has made its final river crossing.

More guesses.

How do you know.. they are guesses?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

From a Heideggarian point of view, "self" (dasein) and its "objects" are co-existent and co-extensive.

I would strongly disagree with that. It is IMO important to maintain a distinction between oneself and the rest of the world. We need some inter-mediation tools to relate to the world: words, arts, sciences, myths, whatever. Trying to fuse into the universe is another way to become schizo. Paradoxically, one can only relate to the world in a fluid, intuitive way if one maintains a distinction between what's in and out of one's mind.

And there's nothing sexy about schizophrenia, trust me. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. And the very reason I almost became mad was that, out of philosophical musing, I came to tinker imprudently with what I now consider as natural and necessary elements of our psyche.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
It's possible for reality to construct a sentence with personal pronouns without there being a self i.e. with there only being an imaginary self. It's deep.... maybe too deep for you.

Even deeper: ask yourself -- or whatever postures as it -- who is doing the imagining...

No one it's all the play of reality... a non-dual reality.... that can appear as dualistic. Eventually the term non-dual is itself discarded as a boat is discarded once it has made its final river crossing.

More guesses.

How do you know.. they are guesses?

I DON'T KNOW...I AM GUESSING!

See how easy that was.

You ought to try it...if you are guessing.

Of course, if you KNOW there is no self...if you KNOW the true nature of REALITY...if you KNOW non-duality is the REALITY...

...there is no need.

Lemme say that again in answer to your question:

I DO NOT KNOW...I AM GUESSING!

Piece of cake! Wink

(worked just like I thought it would!)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

And I am not talking about it either...

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You might perhaps consider your disagreement with Heideggarian views of existence in the light of their adaptation by Merleau-Ponty in the explanation and treatment of "mental conditions". Technically, "naive reality" was shown by him to be an inadequate premise for the understanding of many conditions. For example, the pain in "phantom limbs" experienced by amputees cannot be accounted for by neurology since anesthesia of the lesion site does not work. Instead, the limb+self+context of usage form a unified Gestalt transcendent of physical parameters.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Not really. I am highly suspicious of the whole phenomenology movement, for a number of reasons. Fundamentally, I don't think our mind is tooled to understand itself. Rather, I suspect it's tooled to cheat itself at every turn. Freud understood that. Phenomenology is a highly naïve project.

Beside, the example of the lost limb is really borderline: what's apparently iching is not the missing limb as much as the removed part of ONE'S OWN NERVOUS SYSTEM. Hard to consider that external...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT KNOW...I AM GUESSING!

Piece of cake! (worked just like I thought it would!)

No need to shout...

Is it correct to accuse me of guessing when you don't know if I am... but are only guessing?

How did you put together your guess and decide that is what it was?

My position is that I have unshakable confidence that the self (as I understand it) is a concept with no material substance whatsoever.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT KNOW...I AM GUESSING!

Piece of cake! (worked just like I thought it would!)

No need to shout...

Perhaps no need...but do I need your permission if I simply want to shout?

Quote:

Is it correct to accuse me of guessing when you don't know if I am... but are only guessing?

Yeah, if I want to make a point...which I did. I wanted to show you how easy it is to acknowledge that you are guessing when you are guessing. I even included a comment that noted I was engaging in some trickery when I did it. Thanks for walking into it.

Quote:

How did you put together your guess and decide that is what it was?

I knew it was a guess...when I made the guess. Besides, it was part of a plan which I just explained.

Quote:

My position is that I have unshakable confidence that the self (as I understand it) is a concept with no material substance whatsoever.

Sure you do! Drunk

More likely it is a guess that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge. That would be my guess.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Run your cursor over the area after "piece of cake!"

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

How do you know that you know you are guessing? If you say I don't I'm guessing then how do you know that you guessed that you guessed that you're guessing... get my drift.. your position has no useful foundation.

How do I know what you mean when you say you are guessing? If I don't know then we could agree but for the wrong reasons or disagree for the wrong reasons... etc...etc... etc..

You accuse others of guessing but you don't know they are... what is that a definition of?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

How do you know that you know you are guessing? If you say I don't I'm guessing then how do you know that you guessed that you guessed that you're guessing... get my drift.. your position has no useful foundation.

That is truly funny, igm. Desperation always is.

So you can know there is no "self"...but have trouble understanding how I can know when I make a guess.

Wow! My sides are splitting. (Figuratively, of course.)

Quote:

How do I know what you mean when you say you are guessing?

Jeez...is there no limit to what you will do to entertain me? You can KNOW that there is no self...but you cannot figure how to know when I am guessing--after I tell you I am guessing.

What did I do to deserve such enjoyment!

Quote:

If I don't know then we could agree but for the wrong reasons or disagree for the wrong reasons... etc...etc... etc..

You accuse others of guessing but you don't know they are... what is that a definition of?

A GUESS! Ask me...and I will acknowledge it is a guess. Acknowledging a guess only takes character. (Go look it up!)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Okay. I understand why you might have made a personal investment in a particular paradigm. The fact is that according to contemporary specialists, "cognitive science" (2nd order) has indeed shifted away from "naive realism" (1st order) due in part to the resounding failure of such an approach by the AI faction. And whereas I agree in principle with a statement like "the mind being unable to understand itself", my reading has led me to conclusion that "the mind" is a somewhat vacuous layman's concept, perhaps an epiphenomenon of language, a field which is also suggested by a "systems theory" approach to behavior being adopted by 2nd order theorists.

So without going way beyond the remit of the OP, allow me to say I appreciate that you have engaged in a level of discourse beyond mere posturing.

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know