Inflate or destroy self?

@Olivier5,

Those cognitive scientists working on my case will be glad of a sabbatical ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

Assuming there exist such a thing as a cognitive scientist, of course... Smile

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Of course!..but that's what they call themselves anyway.

0 Replies

If the self does not exist, how can anyone call themselves anything?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Good point, Fresco. That is why I have been mostly quiet during this productive discussion between you and Olivier. I'm trying to conceal my limitations.
I want to add that anyone who does not appreciate your present contributions is revealing his limitations.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

This problem that "self" has is shared by all objects of perception.
One one conceptual level, a car is a meaningful object. On another level, a car is merely a configuration of wheels, engine, drive shafts, seats, doors, chassis etc...
No single part makes the whole, and the whole is only meaningful in terms of what is is used for.

A car is a far simpler object than "self". It is physical, which means that it's boundaries are easily identified. "Self" is not so easily observable. We relate to it differently while using it than what we do when examining it. This is true of cars also.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You haven't addressed my question--in fact, you've just made it more poignant. If all that is so, how can anyone call themselves anything?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Usually what we call ourselves relates to what we do, not what we are.
I am a musician because I play music. It is the music I make, not the fact that I make it, that is of value.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The use of word "wrong" merely denotes your ignorance.

Well, I may be ignorant, but I have enough character to acknowledge when I am guessing...rather than pretending I am revealing divine truth as you do. Personally, I'd rather be ignorant than whatever it is you are.

Quote:

Philosophical paradigms are either more or less intellectually satisfactory, not "right" or "wrong". Those without the intellect to undertand that are merely embarassing themselves by commenting..

One of the great things about being ignorant, Fresco, is that you seldom are embarrassed by making mistakes...like spelling embarrassing incorrectly.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

At this point I suggest we can go no further because we are arguing from different paradigms. Your usage of "existence" clearly indicates this, and you are simply contradicting Derrida's own contention that there is no meaning outside of context.

As far as I am concerned we are merely "language using frogs" (in the sense of my example above) selectively segmenting our species specific, and culture specific ephemeral "realities".

I rest my case, or perhaps I should say "the case of the current fresco" !

Once again, Olivier...can't you get it through you head that if Fresco and any of his "authorities" say your usage of "existence" is not the proper one...he wins the argument.

Jeez!

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

How do you know you "make music?" By Fresco's hilariously naïve version of reality, that would only be a context--although that doesn't address the issue of the origin of the context. This is one of the silliest discussions i've ever seen here, and that's saying a lot!

3 Replies

@Setanta,

I hope I'm not adding to the "silliness" by observing that all "things" are what they are (for humans) by the way they are defined and that is usually, especially in the case of human-made things, reflective of their intended functions. Or, more subtly, by their aesthetic values, e.g., musical compositions, literary significances or compositions of visual forms in art.
It seems to me that every phenomenon can be reduced to almost inconcevably small substrata ( molecular, atomic, subatomic, etc.). And of course one can reverse the "ladder" in terms of ascending emergent levels)--all of which are human constructs. Instead of metaphysical essences, functions and aesthetics are what matter most.

1 Reply

While I may deflate, even regularly, the whole idea of destroying myself seems, you know, bummer.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLN
As I have said before, some of us are in the camp with the slogan:

"Thinkers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your selves ! "

...but as Olivier knows, that is pretty scary. Therein lies the resistance which in essence is little different from that of theists losing "God". Atheists might note that Descarte's dualism required "God" to connect self with body. So those atheists who persist with Descarte's cogito (existence of self) are ignoring a fundamental sticking point in dualism.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

that doesn't address the issue of the origin of the context.

The answer to the origin of the concept "self" as for all concepts has been stated as "through language as an evoluntionarily advanced vehicle for social coherence". To reject such an argument puts us in a chicken-egg game which I am sure a historian would wish to avoid lest it required him to refer the origin of all history to axiomatic events such as those in the Garden of Eden.

Historians might also like to consider usage of the royal "we" with respect to the role of language in the construction of "reality of self".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

JLN
As I have said before, some of us are in the camp with the slogan:

"Thinkers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your selves ! "

...but as Olivier knows, that is pretty scary. Therein lies the resistance which in essence is little different from that of theists losing "God". Atheists might note that Descarte's dualism required "God" to connect self with body. So those atheists who persist with Descarte's cogito (existence of self) are ignoring a fundamental sticking point in dualism.

Sounds here as though you are alleging that you are BRAVER than the rest of us by GIVING UP self.

To me that translates to: I am guessing there is no self...therefore there is no self...and I want to make myself look brave, so I will present it in that light.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Here is how I know I make music. Wink

https://soundcloud.com/burma-van-grid

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That "me"(of yours) would say that would it not ?
Ah... but which "I" is to be the brave one ? Wink

On reflection (=new I created by recent interaction) I should perhaps have written "...it can be scary"

1 Reply

@fresco,

Whence the origin of language? When the origin of social coherence? Your sneers aside, i've not animadverted your concepts on any historical basis. If you deny an ultimate reality, from whence do your terms of reference arise? If, for example, there is no self, how do you propound you silly arguments? I await with breath abated the arrival of igm to lecture us about dualism and transcending self through enlightenment.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

That "me"(of yours) would say that would it not ?
Ah... but which "I" is to be the brave one ?

On reflection (=new I created by recent interaction) I should perhaps have written "...it can be scary"

I'm not "scared" of it...and I recognize that "no-self" is a possibility. I am just getting a kick out of Pope Fresco pronouncing it as a matter of infallibility.

1 Reply

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know