JLN wrote:The self is a critically useful fiction, and in everyday life I usually orient myself as an ego-self to everything else. But when I look I know better.
Good point. I see self as the mother of all illutions, since, in a way, all illusion begines with self.
As an ego-self I sometimes encounter situations in which the action I chose to take is motivated by the understanding of the self's illusory nature. So I still act as an ego-self, but from the understanding that I am not.
That is important to me. One thing is to understand in abstract terms what it means that the self is illusory. Another thing is to apply it in one's life.
Kim
Your question to JL highlights a few unfortunate flaws of our reasoning that are results of how our language is organized.
For instance,
when we are speaking about emotional issues we relate to emotions as something that happens to the self. This is in order to distance ourselves from them in the interest of contemplation. We realize quickly, however, that emotions are part of the self, and this distinction 'me and my emotions' is really a sub-division of the self. It's the same with 'me-my thoughts, me-my body and so on.
This is another issue that reveals the self as something without true consistence. It is not aboslutely defined. The self is highly fluid, an ongoing transition from one perspective to another, where aspects are included or excluded, changing the content of the self. Another example of this is the distinction of thoughts that we think and thoughts that fall into our heads.
