Questions: Self Identity

[cantdog]

Well, I had a long one to lay on people

Cant, you know I take your mind seriously, so don't think me being glib. The way you explained your mystical experience struck me as common. I cannot see the difference between your Observor during that time, and the one that is always there (for you or anyone). I don't quite get why you've brought mysticism into this.

Pear

Quite all right, Perdita; that was half a post, really. When I have a long one, I am usually fearful it won't be read. But I wanted to make this post anyway. I broke it up into two. I think two. We'll see.

My point about the self in my trance states, if I can call them that, is that I am no longer thinking about it, not preparing a mental construct of the self without predicates, but living for the moment in it, without any other thing.

From the outside that point of view could be empty and the same as anyone's, but I felt no diminution as a disembodied point of view. I was still myself, distinctly, although I suppose I have to infer that I still had my history; I wasn't thinking about my past. I felt as whole as I ever do. So I have to agree with English Lady that the personality is intrinsic to it.

I was in my usual place, behind my eyes, but very alert, buoyed up. I knew I was not alone. Other mystics sense a presence and even state that they sense God or an echo of God, but I can't speak to that problem.

It's the sensation you get when something unusual, a sound, has pulled you out of your book or your writing and caused you to look around to see what it is that made it, even if you don't remember the sound.

In the way you turn your head, listening, to place the sound if it comes again, I was listening, too. I felt close to something, and I feel that suspended closeness to something (from no direction) every time. Very exposed but not uncomfortable about it. Quite the opposite. The closeness is to something good, or at least I seem to feel it would be better to be closer.

But I have to do all my thinking about it afterward. When the trance ceases, it's as if the time was lost. Not gone, exactly, but I have to remember it afterward.

Still, that's not the point here, because what I felt close to couldn't very well be myself.

I bring it up because when I do Joe's thought experiment, I am left with a flavorless abstraction, just the role of the subject of some unknown sentence. Whereas I can say from this rather unusual form of experience that I still possess my personality, without my pain, my fears, my body, or even my reason or the sense of time, when I am just my self.

On the other hand, I don't think this is the same conversation as the one with the Japanese director working with Western theater. But since we're having both conversations simultaneously, there it is.

cantdog

 

[mismused]

Cant, you know I take your mind seriously, so don't think me being glib. The way you explained your mystical experience struck me as common. I cannot see the difference between your Observor during that time, and the one that is always there (for you or anyone). I don't quite get why you've brought mysticism into this.

Pear

===========================

I'm not sure it it was what cant meant, only he can really say, but touching on what you call the "mystical" may be the only way we can truly appreciate the "self."

Self has to imply a knower of the self, and any knower has to have formed the ability to think. That ability was there, as you suggest in the psalm where God knitted you.

That ability allows you to become, just as any can see in any child learning to talk. It is inherent, and I won't go into that any further here.

You do, however, speak of Jaspers as being an existentialist. It is existentialist, I understand, that came up with seeing ourselves as being as we entered the world, beings that are, shall we say, bereft of any other than life on earth and possibilities. Thereafter, all progresses. From what progresses, we begin to "become."

All progression in this form, in existence from how we entered this existence. In this progression, we form habits that when taken together, form the fabric of our particular being, or individual "self" in this world.

To see how we formed that self, you must become self-less, much as cant suggests, I think.

mismused

 

[Guest]

Reread the lastest contributions (thank you). El spoke of ‘where the self begins’—great point for this discussion. (Steve W. notes whether Self exists at birth; see God comments). I also think of the ‘core’ El noted—that we cannot show it, or even see (know) it by ourselves. That is what I have always pondered and sought (perhaps futilely, yet I think the quest is the thing, for me anyway).

Then El says we might find out we are not unlike others, or that we may all be the same. That leads me to the question of God (or first creator, etc.), another quest all together. El, you’ve helped me narrow down, more precisely, my own needs. Thanks again.

Cant, you say, “If you observe any part of it [self], that part doesn’t count, because it is being observed.” I don’t get the dismissal—how can you really separate the ‘parts’, even observer and observed? It sounds like metaphysical schizophrenia (haha).

I get the segue into mysticism, but it’s academic (or religious) to me. I’m not dismissing it, just coming at it from a non-eastern mindset. “Comparative Consciousness”? *smile* But then your second post mentions the God bit (from an atheist no less!) so I think we’re getting somewhere.

Mismused, your post held as profound thinking as any other here, including Shakespeare I daresay. I like how you placed being ‘self-less’ in the process of self-knowledge. I think I agree finally with Cant, thanks to you, on some yet inexplicable plane.

Perdita

 

[mismused]

Off topic

Reread the lastest contributions (thank you). El spoke of ?where the self begins??great point for this discussion. (Steve W. notes whether Self exists at birth; see God comments). I also think of the ?core? El noted?that we cannot show it, or even see (know) it by ourselves. That is what I have always pondered and sought (perhaps futilely, yet I think the quest is the thing, for me anyway).

Then El says we might find out we are not unlike others, or that we may all be the same. That leads me to the question of God (or first creator, etc.), another quest all together. El, you?ve helped me narrow down, more precisely, my own needs. Thanks again.

Cant, you say, ?If you observe any part of it [self], that part doesn?t count, because it is being observed.? I don?t get the dismissal?how can you really separate the ?parts?, even observer and observed? It sounds like metaphysical schizophrenia (haha).

I get the segue into mysticism, but it?s academic (or religious) to me. I?m not dismissing it, just coming at it from a non-eastern mindset. ?Comparative Consciousness?? *smile* But then your second post mentions the God bit (from an atheist no less!) so I think we?re getting somewhere.

Mismused, your post held as profound thinking as any other here, including Shakespeare I daresay. I like how you placed being ?self-less? in the process of self-knowledge. I think I agree finally with Cant, thanks to you, on some yet inexplicable plane.

Perdita

========================

Now if only my writing was considered right along with Will's, then I would have two great recommendations.

TY,

mismused

 

[nushu2]

Cant, you're not the only athiest that has had a mystical experience but you're looking in the wrong direction to find self. Every mystic that ever came down from a mountain said the same thing in one way or another, "We are one". In those terms, self is an illusion. I prefer the word, abstraction.

Why is everybody here avoiding the word, soul?

 

[Guest]

Why is everybody here avoiding the word, soul?

Nushu, I'm not avoiding it; it wasn't my original query. I think many people might use soul and self as the same thing, but it might leave out some in the discussion (as it pertains to religious beliefs, e.g., that a soul belongs to God). However, you're welcome to speak of it as you wish.

Perdita

 

[nushu2]

No, no. Thanks, but no. I'm not the person to be talking about a soul. I just thought some of the posts danced around it.

 

[mismused]

No, no. Thanks, but no. I'm not the person to be talking about a soul. I just thought some of the posts danced around it.

==========================

For myself, soul, spirit, ultimate self, if any, being, life, I know nothing about them other than speculation. None of them has been proven other than by individual experience, as you say. Many have called them variously.

mismused

 

[cantdog]

Nearly every source I consulted to determine the nature of my experience referred to what I called the observer as the soul. But the traditions the writers came from made that term a good one for them.

There's been too much hooey about souls. What size they are, where they go, whether they transmigrate or are saved or damned or subsumed into nirvana. Phooey on souls. The part that was me was me, that's all. It wasn't my mind, and functionally it was a POV, an observer, a continuity-- a self.

I fail to see how one could sell it. Perhaps the "sales" of souls amounted to a contract like indentured servitude.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I've always seen souls and self as separate ideas personally. A self is you. That can't be given or traded or tarnished or any of the shit you can do to souls. It's just you.

But souls are those pieces of you that are like a conscience. The culmination of dreams and hopes and good deeds and strong philosophies and all that other jazz that people remember having when they were young and try to regain when they're older. To me, that's a soul. Thus, someone can steal your soul (by smashing your optimism, draining your will to care, leading you to tasks that sit poorly with your conscience, smashing your dreams) and you can "sell your soul" (by agreeing to lose the following in order to have enough money to eat or live comfortably). By the same token, it's the bit that can be summed up at the end to designate whatever destination the self has in any afterlife that may exist. And even without an afterlife, the ideas work. You see a cubicle drone and think "he has lost his soul." He hasn't lost his self, just his soul.

I think that's enough from the amateur philosopher.

 

[English Lady]

Perdita...I am glad you've found my words helpful


LC....yes I think I can see what you mean. I am not sure, I'm still thinking through this one but could our soul be that self personality that we build up around our inner core? You know the layers of personality we've been stripping back in this thread....is that our soul?


(honestly its a question....any ideas?)

 

[mismused]

Re: Well, I had a long one to lay on people

. . . but living for the moment in it, without any other thing.

But I have to do all my thinking about it afterward. When the trance ceases, it's as if the time was lost. Not gone, exactly, but I have to remember it afterward.

cantdog

========================

cant,

Sorry I didn't pay attention to this part before. Two things as above:

1. Living in the moment in it, as you said above, the Buddhists talk about living in the moment also, where ". . . one feels increasingly one with it."

2. Have you ever tried to do your "thinking" while in the moment? It is possible, and I think that as far as you've come, you'll find it a worthwhile experience.

mismused

 

[cantdog]

It does seem to be possible. Certainly mystics speak of investigating and traveling, all kinds of things. So far, though, if I start to analyze, that pulls me out.

I believe it to be worth pursuing, though.

 

[mismused]

It does seem to be possible. Certainly mystics speak of investigating and traveling, all kinds of things. So far, though, if I start to analyze, that pulls me out.

I believe it to be worth pursuing, though.

=========================

I can tell you that it is definitely possible, at least the thinking part. You'll find it well worth your while to try it. If it seems you can't, don't give up, just keep on trying. It should come to you.

P, sorry to be hijacking your thread.

mismused

edited to add "...the thinking part."

 

[cantdog]

==========================

For myself, soul, spirit, ultimate self, if any, being, life, I know nothing about them other than speculation. None of them has been proven other than by individual experience, as you say. Many have called them variously.

mismused

What proof could you have?

Testimony from others which is recognizably similar, even congruent, from various parts of the world, and from different centuries, and from people who practice different religions, and which rings true. What would make a person like Thomas Merton write all that, mendaciously? No, given that there is no device of science to detect and measure these things, the lack of such evidence is no bar to their reality. Thoughtful and sensitive comparing of testimony must be allowed validity, since it is the only reasonable method of inquiry available.

And as to them being called variously, why should people from different traditions, and centuries, and all that be expected to call them by the same names?

You have to interpret, and obviously you can go wrong. The cure for that is more participation, more people talking to one another and making more judgements, interpretations, comparisons. If you don't talk to each other because proof seems to be impossible, you just delay the inquiry. I am not content to just wait until a soul-o-meter becomes available; I think we should continue the investigation of these things in the way people have always done.

 

[Guest]

P, sorry to be hijacking your thread.

No problemo. Go on. P.

 

[mismused]

What proof could you have?

Testimony from others which is recognizably similar, even congruent, from various parts of the world, and from different centuries, and from people who practice different religions, and which rings true. What would make a person like Thomas Merton write all that, mendaciously? No, given that there is no device of science to detect and measure these things, the lack of such evidence is no bar to their reality. Thoughtful and sensitive comparing of testimony must be allowed validity, since it is the only reasonable method of inquiry available.

And as to them being called variously, why should people from different traditions, and centuries, and all that be expected to call them by the same names?

You have to interpret, and obviously you can go wrong. The cure for that is more participation, more people talking to one another and making more judgements, interpretations, comparisons. If you don't talk to each other because proof seems to be impossible, you just delay the inquiry. I am not content to just wait until a soul-o-meter becomes available; I think we should continue the investigation of these things in the way people have always done.

=======================

I quite agree with you about the need to investigate, or why else would we be able to think?

Let me assure you that I am not a disbeliever in soul, or whatever any wish to call our being. We definitely can, and, in my opinion, use what others have described to us as their view of our life. They often provide us with a definite ring of clarity that is difficult to deny.

Yet, we do have to say that it has not been proven, save by each that literally experiences it, then only proven as far as they are concerned. Beyond that, it is belief. Again, belief is good too.

I suspicion that it is needful for each to prove to their self that we do have a soul, or that there is life after this bodily experience, as well, probably, as before it. In this, I believe as the Buddha is said to have told his disciples that they shouldn't take his word for anything, that they should investigate, and prove for their own experience, and make it their own, or words to that effect.

I hope that I made myself a little clearer on this.

mismused

 

[cantdog]

I think I see, yes.

In the meantime, what about the Self Investigative and Self Developing and Identity Assertion thing that perdita's original interview article tells us is all through western theater? I thought Hamlet was planning to do a murder for the sort of reason a gang member would understand. The guy offed his dad and took his mom, for power. Hamlet is the son. Someone had seriously crowded the limit. I mean, if you're on the street, you just can't let that kind of bullshit go.

So we know he's going to have to kill the man. He knows he's going to have to kill the man, too. How could he possibly not know that? I don't think anyone who's been in the company of gang bangers would see it in any other way. So Hamlet's problem is getting the balls and finding the opportunity, and maybe laying the groundwork for the aftermath.

Having that play within the play might make the king twitch and betray himself guilty, but even if not, it will remind everybody what went down with his dad. That might mean more people could see he had to do it, and he might get off lighter than if he just up and offed the guy.

But his main problem was balls. He was comfortable, despite everything; he was living like a prince! And he might be exiled or killed in turn if he acted. But he knows from the start he has to do it, or what kind of prince is he?

Am I right?

 

[Guest]

I thought Hamlet was planning to do a murder for the sort of reason a gang member would understand. ... So Hamlet's problem is getting the balls and finding the opportunity, ...
But his main problem was balls. ... But he knows from the start he has to do it, or what kind of prince is he? Am I right?

No, no, no. The balls and murders are only the plot, the thing that's easy to follow on the stage (or the page). What happens in the boy's head while looking for the balls is what the play's about. "The play's the thing" applies to Hamlet more than to his uncle's conscience. Substitute 'balls' for self-identity and you've got the crux of the matter. Or were you being facetious? P.

 

[mismused]

I think I see, yes.

In the meantime, what about the Self Investigative and Self Developing and Identity Assertion thing that perdita's original interview article tells us is all through western theater? I thought Hamlet was planning to do a murder for the sort of reason a gang member would understand. The guy offed his dad and took his mom, for power. Hamlet is the son. Someone had seriously crowded the limit. I mean, if you're on the street, you just can't let that kind of bullshit go.


Am I right?

==========================

I don't do Shakespeare, have never read one of his plays, or even seen one, so I can't say anything about him. All I know is P said something about self, or self-idnetity being an illusion, or questioned it. From there is where I entered this discussion. Sorry I can't help on that part.

mismused

 

[mismused]

This is what I believe, so far, about self, or self-identity

As far as I can determine, it is impossible for me to know your "self." I have no direct access to you that I know of, nor to Perdita, nor anyone else.

Self is known to the owner of the self that is to be known, and as far as I can determine, it has to be identified, or discovered by that particular individual if they so desire. No other can identify me for me, nor can I truly identify anyone else for them.

As you said, cant, we can use other's guidelines of what they say that they've experienced in our own search for ourself, or as a point of discussion. Whatever search Merton made, or any saint, or the Buddha, I can take what they say, and see if I can find a way to experience something similar, or satisfactory to me, but it must be me that does it, or you that does it for your own self.

Thus, if you, or any one else, is satisfied with what s/he sees of her/himself, then that is that persons self.

Now, I may have a differing opinion of another person than they have of theirself, but it is only an opinion, and a reality only to my perspective. That person has their reality, and that reality lives within them as a personal self.

Whew! This can go on forever, huh? Anyway, it is a very interesting journey we undertake, and one that was advised that we take by Socrates who said that a life worth living is a life worth examining, or something like that.

I know that for many people, this is a terrifying thing to contemplate. My God, it should be for it involves you questioning your own being, and then finding you just don't have the answers other than to say that "I am," and then maybe still be left wondering. For many, that's good enough. For you, me, others, it's not.

I know one thing, though, and that is that for me, I know that I am, and feel that I will not do anything to harm myself, whatever I ultimately am, at least not involuntarily. Also, there is nothing, as far as I can figure out, intrinsically within me to do myself any harm, or at least that is my perception of myself. When it's all over and done, I may find that is in error.

Who knows? Still, I personally am content with what I believe in that respect. If I feared life, I would end it in a mad rush of some kind. There must be something in me that precludes that just as there is in a baby to be able to teach itself to understand language.

mismused

 

[sweetnpetite]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thought, maybe the self isn't stripped of those things, but distilled. That would be another 'small self' theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I'm not sure what you mean, here.

It was just another thought, barely related. Kind of the opposite of the 'blank slate' but the same idea as 'small self.' Just something I was bouncing around in my head. Sort of a 'devil's advocate' thing to say. (ie, what if you're *right* but it's the *opposite* of that!) Yeah, I can see the confusion!

 

[sweetnpetite]

What is the difference between identity and ego? No, I'm not looking for Freudian definitions. Ego can be bloated but so can identity. In fact, a self-identity may be completely false. So, if you take away all that could be false, what are you left with?

It would seem that self* and self-identity* are two very separate things. They are going to get confused on this thread for sure! (I have already done so myself)

'Dita, what are your thoughts on this? Should we discuss both or should we stick to one?

I am enjoying this thread but will have to return to it when I have more time.

 

[Guest]

It would seem that self* and self-identity* are two very separate things. They are going to get confused on this thread for sure! (I have already done so myself)

'Dita, what are your thoughts on this? Should we discuss both or should we stick to one?

Self-identity is merely what we make of our Self, it's just a term for that. Ego is an academic (psychological) term, part of the Self, a working integral part, but not 'the' Self. Ok? P.

 

[Black Tulip]

Maybe I missed my take on identity as I have not read everything, but to me soul and self are two different concepts. Like LC said.

To me my identity, my self is in large part defined by how the world sees me. Not because I am who people think I am. I mean like knowing what you look like because you can see in a mirror. It has something to do with reflection, you have a certain image of yourself in your head, but that is not necessarily correct. The mirror shows you what the world is seeing. That is also part of the whole, everybody hides parts of self in my opinion.

Self is totally different from my soul, which to me is the part of me that's indestructable. Self is the current jacket.

Awareness of self is something else. I think I can relate to Cantdog if I read him correctly. I did a training for Transpersonal Therapist and I remember one time we had to meditate outside. At a certain point I was seeing myself as this tiny speck in the landscape and at the same time I was so big I was spanning the horizon.
That was certainly me, apart from other people, but definitely not a constante.

Starting to ramble I think.