All illutions begin with "self"

I think first we must define "illusion".

The problem with definitions which rely on a comparison with "reality" is that they tend to be circular. If on the other hand we take both "self" and "reality" as aspects of "social consensus" we might say an "illusion" is a situation of "lack of consenus". either of A disagreeing with B, or of A disagreeing with himself (seeing conflicting realities)

A transcendent analysis of "self" with respect to "ultimate Truth" would perhaps trivially answer "true" to your original question.

Selfhood is "the original idea," and upon which discussion Fresco and I stumbled into each other over five years ago on Abuzz.

Ah, our salad days, when we were green.

And whatever happened to our dear friend Crepa? Miss him I do.

kuvasz,

I concur with the "loss" of some quality contributors. You can probably count on the fingers of one hand those who understand the importance of "self examination" in philosophical or spiritual analysis. Further, a general lack of knowledge of key references and the refusal to follow up links to them turns many threads into a sterile slanging match between entrenched "little me's".

Cyracuz,

To get back to the topic. If we consider the "Muller Lyer Illusion" (reversed arrow heads give perception of less length of straight line) it has been shown that cultures not brought uo in perpendicular buldings do no "see" this illusion. This is evidence for the evolution of "self as interpreter of reality" having a "cultural dimension". Further support comes from the strong form of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (language directs thought).

Fresco,

I do not know what you mean by "a cultural dimension", but I would imagine that "self as interpreter of reality" has all the dimensions of the reality it interprets. Maybe I got you wrong...

But in trying to define "self" I am having real problems. There are many definitions, but they all agree on one thing; that the self is an independent entity.
I do not see how it can be so.

My objection can be explained with the indian philosopher Nagarjuna's claim that sentient beings are empty of self. All phenomena are without any "own-nature" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence; they are empty of being.
This is so because they are arisen dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.

Cyracuz,

I (of course) agree that "self" is not an independent entity. To extend this in terms of "cultural dimension" which you queried, the concept of "self" is acquired as an "actor" like "others". Note the young child who uses his own name (Peter) instead of the word "I" in sentences like "Peter want it". The jusidiction of such an actor is culturally delimited. Consider traditional gender roles and the differential jurisduction of "I" as a female, compared to "I" as a male. In short "I" is a social self ....part of a hive...even though it has "control" over some of its bodily activities. The question ofwhether it has control of its "thoughts" depends on what importance you give to "language" as internalized social reality.

I did some checking on the word "self", and found an interesting link on autism.

http://iautistic.com/autism-theory-of-mind-revisited.php

The author of the article is an autistic, and he describes autistics as people who have a self that functions differently than non-autistics.

What implications, if any, does this have on our 'everyday' notion of self?

I also found this in a wikipedia article on 'cognition':

"The term "cognition" is also used in a wider sense to mean the act of knowing or knowledge, and may be interpreted in a social or cultural sense to describe the emergent development of knowledge and concepts within a group that culminate in both thought and action."

I don't know if it's relevant, but it seems to me that this is about "cultural dimensions" of cognition.
So yes, "self" has a cultural dimension.

bm

Cyracuz,

I don't think that article on autism says anymore than was known already about its "sufferers". Man has an in-ordinately long period of dependency on others which is considered advantageous for survival because he can "learn by proxy" without facing dangers first hand. In the autistic the empathic social links are impaired and learning is by "exposure". This may be why the autistic tends to confine himself to intricate coccoons of regularity.

Agreed.

Still I find the idea of a different theory of self interesting. Makes me wonder just how much of traditional theory of self is an adaptation to our way of defining it. Wich way does the water run?
Our western understanding of the self is a rather blurry mix of the thoughts of several historical figureres who use the term 'self' in slightly different ways.


In a sense 'self' is the practical solution to the problem of existence, and it stands to reason that when the environment changes, the self will change accordingly. In that way our identities are reflections of our surroundings.
A person who builds houses sees himself as a carpenter.
In the company of short people I am a tall person.

I suspect if the concept of self is just an illution,since every self is a biological assembladge of thousands of it's ancestors.and through reproduction the self will be divided into thousands of it's progenies.it is only a point in a line which connects the past generation and the future generation,and to the self the line seems have neither beginning nor ending.
It is strange that the self is the true center of one's world and other beings are just it's reflections?is it that only by this way that the process of biological evolution can proceed effectively?

pang

You portrait the self as something enduring and constant.

I am in the oposite end. I see 'self' as something a lot more spontaneous in nature.



The world is not a reflection in the self. The self is a reflection in the world.

Prof P. Davies: The Matter Myth:

It is always interesting, sometimes depressing and usually humorous when a physicist engages in philosophy. Davies concludes the book by saying that 'physics has for centuries tried to dispel the myth of "the ghost in the machine" and it has been successful however it is not because it has proved that there is no ghost but because it has proved that there is no machine.'

Davies was referring to the ever increasing evidence that inside any kind of 'matter' we find mostly empty space with only very sparse particles of actual matter inside. When we take it a level deeper we find those smaller particles are also mostly emptly space with very sparse actual matter and so on apparently ad infinitum implying that matter itself is a myth - hence the title of the book.

It is has interesting implications for materialists that physicists, whose only area of operation is the physical world, should come to the conclusion that the material world is an illusion.

Also interesting, I think, is the similarity that thought has to Buddhism for instance.



Interesting way to see it. But as I understand it the theories that suggest that the material world is an illusion are hard, if not impossible, to prove. So they are not technically regarded as true, but the implications these theories bring are very interesting.