dostf

j.p brooks:

Hey j.p thought you were gone....

So, are you saying that psychological "progress" involves overcoming the desire to put up a "persona" or social facade in our interactions with others in the world?(jpb)

No, i used this example to give you some more concrete idea of what i was trying to express.
The point here was to illustrate that friendship even what i define as "ordinary friendship" allows us to be a little more free from "self" than normal. In a "reality/truth" friendship this "self" is "passed" with "love" being the mechanism to do so.

No, I meant that existence as separate individuals is practically an unavoidable experience for us. So psychological "progress" must involve more than simply overcoming the belief that we are individual "Selves".(jpb)

Yes and no- Yes we are pysiologically different bodies. No the idea here is that you have an idea of what you are, based on your history(past experiences, knowledge etc. and so do I. Again, this gives us a sense of who and what we are as people. THIS is the only difference between us and is not "real"- (it was learned, grafted on us from our families, past experiences etc.)
We are not that "self". As a side note here I would also say that is why I definitely want nothing to do with the"past". Our past gives us strong reinforcement that this "self" is "real". if we "erase" the past, we go very far in erasing the "self".

Also, "simply overcoming the belief we are individual selves"- This is no small thing!! It asserts that "you" or "self" doesn't exist!! Even logically grasping this is very difficult. Living it is that much harder!

dostf

John Page:

I'm confused. You say "self" is not real, doesn't exist, and then go on to define something you say is not true.(j.p)

Yes, you are correct and hence the limitations of words. I define "self" so we are able to converse about this topic-and for me express certain ideas.
However you are correct this "self" is not "real". I use it(the word self) to define the totality of our "attributes" which we often describe as "me". I state this assumption is false-we are NOT this "self" . Does this make it clear? if not i will try again.

John Page

Let me offer the following:

1. Self comprises physically identifiable matter plus an abstract component. Hence body + mind == self. I suspect we've been tripping up over the word "real" - I think you're using it to mean "physical" only where as I think of real of "exists" in either physical or abstract form. e.g. Electrical energy exists but you can't (directly) see it in a copper wire. Same with thoughts in the brain.

2. Humans detect other humans as having similar physical attributes and we learn much about the makeup of our physical bodies, e.g. specialized organs, blood system etc. We also know much about the life-cycle aspects of our bodies.

3. The behavior of our physical self seems determined in largely by the abstract part. However, it seems that the abstract parts of us are also very similar (between humans). Rapport between two minds can go beyond words, presumably through learning each other's personality/behavior traits and non-verbal communication to sense mood etc.

From item 3 it seems to me that we can be objective about ourselves through others because of that very intimacy of common mind and body structure. Yes, our bodies are physically separate but can be affected by the same localized 'atmosphere' too - I think the same can be true for minds. e.g. comedians milking the audience. If we all read the same propoganda then the effect can be amplified, mass delusion is the two-edged sword of commonality in being.

So, to stop myself writing a thesis, we can be considered to be our attributes. However, we have incomplete understanding of ourselves and are unlikely to be our perceived attributes.

Are we close in mind here?

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

jpbrooks

Sorry. I intended to get back to ths thread earlier, but got sidetracked by other commitments.

The way that "love" and "friendship" allows us to get past the "self" still seems vague. Can you explain how the process works in more detail?

But we can't avoid having bodies. Without bodies, we can have no means of existing in the physical material world. So wouldn't recognizing that fact be part of what characterizes sanity?

But again, our experiences of individuality seem real and difficult to escape from. If they are not real, why does it take so much effort to overcome the "illusion" that they are real?

I agree on this point. Incorporating the idea that the conceptual boundaries that we create to define "self" are all artificial, into our everyday unavoidably individualistic lives, would take a great deal of ingenuity on our part.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

dostf

john page:

1. Self comprises physically identifiable matter plus an abstract component. Hence body + mind == self. (jp)

This definition seems reasonable, however i offer the following-
body- I will not dispute that the body is not a physiological fact. However, I assert that its "ownership" is not "ours". "ownership" implies that it is ours do do with as we wish. But, can we see red as green? can we regulate our blood flow? can we stop any internal organs from funtioning? These work automatically despite "our" wishes. Here is the difficulty as both of the following are correct-we do have something we call body- and we do not( that is implying ownnership). "self" claims ownnership falsely is my assertion here.

Mind- Yes it could be said mind is part of constructed self. However it might also be viewed as a "recording/action" mechanism. It uses whatever data is stored and bases its decisions on that data. The problem here of course is this data is often false.

2. OK!!

3.However, it seems that the abstract parts of us are also very similar (between humans).(jp)

Is this so? Are they not very different depending on our experiences, knowledge, beliefs, etc.? Or are you asserting they are similar in very general terms?

Rapport between two minds can go beyond words, presumably through learning each other's personality/behavior traits and non-verbal communication to sense mood etc

Ok , but i would say that i am not interested in knowing personality/behaviour traits-they become evident over time. It is going "past" these traits we all have that i suggest is the target.

From item 3 it seems to me that we can be objective about ourselves through others because of that very intimacy of common mind and body structure. (jp)

More of less so depending on who that other person might be!

So, to stop myself writing a thesis, we can be considered to be our attributes. However, we have incomplete understanding of ourselves and are unlikely to be our perceived attributes. (jp)

Yes you could DESCRIBE a person by their attributes. I state however they are not "truly" what we are.
As for the last sentence here i am not sure of your menaing so perhaps you could elaborate??

Are we close in mind here?(jp)- Thats the beauty of conversation!!-and part of the aim.
As you might say CHEERS!!

John Page

Yes, I agree "self" could misleadingly imply some kind of "ownership". "Self" is merely the word that an individual instance of a human being uses to describe its own identity. The truth (i.e. existence of) one's self is detected like any other truth, as I said earlier in the thread:


I don't see any conflict here, we just need to be precise about the definition of the boundary between physical/abstract and ensure it is consistent with the boundaries of physical self.

Yes, I meant the latter. Prime example, god. It seems we all have an inbuilt sense of the concept of god, irrespective of claims for the existence of god. I suggest this common abstract feature of human beings (i.e. god) is an evolutionary useful mass psychosis that enabled mass action beyond intimate family groups. Hence civilizations. If atheists need a challenge, it is to rationalize and explain to others how they believe. I believe societies that do this will be more successful through freer thought and thus control over reality.

I'm still a little lost as to what you think is "past" the traits? An individual soul? A normal or typical human being?

I was pointing out that perception of our attributes and objective reality of our attributes can be different.

I agree that a description of our attributes, however complete, is clearly not "us". However, if added to an understanding of how a human being operates we can determine how our differences as individuals enable us to discover who and what we are (as individuals).

Cheers!

John Page

Hi jpb!

I agree with your conclusion but suggest a couple of changes to pre-empt attack by ID'ers. "Incorporating the idea that the conceptual boundaries inherent in the realization of "self" are all real but created of illusion, into our everyday unavoidably individualistic lives, would take a great deal of ingenuity on our part."

Cheers!

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

jpbrooks

Hello, John.

I do agree with your point above. My point in stating it that way was to suggest that the "self" has "intersubjective" rather than objective reality, but is nonetheless "real" in that sense. So, incorporating the idea that the "self" is artificial into a lifestyle would be difficult.

My points are not always clearly expressed in my attempts to be concise. And occasionally the attempts to be concise turn out to be self-defeating because clarifying my position ends up turning into a lengthy discussion.

John Page

jpb:
Me too neither - I sometimes feel that I provide employment for many monkeys with typewriters!

Anyone:
For an added twist to this topic:

1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical truth. If truth manifests itself through a coincidence of values (i.e. 1 = 1) how does (a, the, any) "1" come into existence and where is it? Where do quantities come from? If we cannot understand how a 1 is manufactured the chances are we don't understand truth or math and their relationship to reality. Thoughts?

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

dostf

jp brooks:

sorry....(jpb)
-no worries!

(my first attempt at a reply to your post was zapped by my computer after over 1 hour of thought and typing so i'm trying again!)

The way that "love" and "friendship" allows us to get past the "self" still seems vague. Can you explain how the process works in more detail?(jpb)

Sure. Let's say you and I come together for a conversation. We are both interested in finding out what is true. We both are reasonable and relatively "openminded". Of course we both have our own ideas of what is true. For example I might state that the truth can be found in the bible. You then reasonably and logically proceed to show me the inconsistencies and "debatable" passages in that text. As your argument is reasonable, I am forced to reevaluate my version of "truth". Furthermore, as you are educating me (without any benefit to yourself), an affection begins for that person-you in this case. (Note this is a recprical relationship as we both are "educating" the other, depending on our own "expertise".) This affection leads to friendship over time, and eventually love. Love is the mechanism to "pass" self. It shifts our focus from our(self) to that other human we love. Again even in ordinary biological love we get a taste of this. When you are with that other you love, you only think of them when you are together. You don't notice "time", "space", physical sensations, etc. They are what exists for you. Your(self) does not exist here. When love of truth is the base of this friendship, this same sort of process occurs, only "truth" that is not"you""self" lives. This truth has no name, face, or picture,-yet it at the same time it does and it is that person you love. Does this make things at least somewhat clearer?

But we can't avoid having bodies. Without bodies, we can have no means of existing in the physical material world. So wouldn't recognizing that fact be part of what characterizes sanity?(jpb)

yes and no- I recently gave some thoughts about this to john page a little earlier in this thread.
Yes we have a physical body that exists from one perspective.
From another perspective who "owns" this body?, can you see blue as red? or control your blood flow, or make your organs work they way you. wish? If you would truly be the "owner" you could do what you like as you are in command. Mind always must separate and define in order to regulate our world. While certainly useful in one regard, it perpetuates the "we (self) exist" falsity. Truth is a wholeness without name, picture, face- at the same time it does, the one you love.

But again, our experiences of individuality seem real and difficult to escape from. If they are not real, why does it take so much effort to overcome the "illusion" that they are real?(jpb)


It is this "seemingly real" aspect that is very difficult. To lose our(self) is to feel as though we are going to die. I assert "self" will do anything to perpetuate its own existence as the alternative is "death". What will happen to "me"? This is a living and really not expressable.

I agree on this point. Incorporating the idea that the conceptual boundaries that we create to define "self" are all artificial, into our everyday unavoidably individualistic lives, would take a great deal of ingenuity on our part.(jpb)

Again, yes and no. There is no need for fasting, prayer, or any "rituals" of any sort done over a lifetime as was tried in the past(and failed). "love" is "quicker" than even thought.
However to live this "all the time" is very difficult as per the previous paragraph detailing the "selfs" "will to exist".

I hope this answer was not to long, as i tried to be as succinct as i could without sacrificing meaning.