Jeff Brademeyer
The question that increasingly interests me is not whether the self exists, but what kind of reality a self would have to be for the phenomenon of selfhood to be possible.
A stone exists but does not know itself.
A wolf acts but may not become an object to itself.
A computer processes information but does not appear to appropriate its own existence.
Yet human beings seem capable of something unique: they not only experience reality but can turn back upon themselves and recognize themselves as the one having the experience.
I remember a childhood memory as my memory.
I judge a past decision as my decision.
I ask whether the person I have become is the person I wish to become.
This suggests that the self is neither a mere object nor merely a stream of experiences.
Rather, the self seems to be that reality which can become an object to itself without ceasing to be the subject experiencing it.
The distinguishing mark of selfhood therefore appears not to be agency alone, but reflexive participation in one’s own existence.
Viewed this way, the self seems less like a thing and more like a reality that becomes present to itself.
At least for me, this seems to account more adequately for the phenomena of memory, identity, responsibility, and continuity through time than either a purely objectified self or the denial of selfhood altogether.
====================
There is no actual evidence that accounts for the self. I support whatever theory emerges from that. The theory for reality is that there is no evidence for what is normal. Therefore, doesn't exist either. Norms are things that we associate with to behave a certain way. But we all still wear masks to live in a state that the roles we play match with what is communal. My point is I rather focus on what's important to me on a personal level. The answers I seek come from learning through what I experience. The mechanical failure on my part, the me that exists in real time, may have to fail in order to examine what that is. Trial and error? Trial and error supports the advancement of one's self. The better question then becomes: what is it about myself that is true in relation to the self. This is more of metacognition in action. The question of my or the I. My reaction should not be dependant on another persons point of view - ever. So, I live independently of a void into the submission of someone with the same name. How do I know? What if we are plagiarized copies of things we unconsciously absorb in real time. How do I know?
This is how you think about what the self is. That if there is no self - you are lost treating the image of self you think is there. Only it does not manifest over time. The more you move in space and time, the current of your experiences dissolve. My point here is - are you trying to hold something together in your sense of identity. How do you know? The direction you take now was not an different than it was. Tomorrow may be eclipsed by your wish to be someone else. The point is this: that we cannot undo how we got here. It's all relative. There is no escape. The more you realize this, the further off you seem to others. This takes an awareness far beyond measure. Measuring the self means being obsolete.
- Marco
edit: This is a meta narrative that fits with the description of this group. I know my stuff. What comes next if anyone cares to debunk me - better be ready. I am not a scarecrow.
==================
Marco, what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time.
My question is whether the very capacity to recognize those changes already points to something more enduring. Most of us seem to experience ourselves not merely as changing, but as the same “I” undergoing those changes. The child, the adolescent, and the adult may differ dramatically in beliefs, desires, memories, and self-conceptions, yet we still ordinarily say, “That was me.”
Whether that continuity is real or illusory is precisely the kind of question I’m trying to explore.
=================
". . . what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time."
I find your interpretation thoughtful and impressive. Not only that it makes sense, it computes what I meant.
Where I gather you've still remained unsatisfied?
You continue with searching for an answer, (which is not a critique of you). Only because, I feel the same about truth and learning. That you develop curiosity as a rule. This curiosity is a sophisticated type. The type where "curiosity as a rule" is conceding that their never is an end to truth. The search (curiosity) is the intent behind what is why we do philosophy.
My last paragraph (above) is written in this idea. That as I said in my original response to you, that I tie together herein. Now, I would stick to your original question. That being the self. What is - the self.
My question in the original response I made, is something I referred naming 'normal' or what is 'normal' has no theory to it. That means we can not adhere to what normal is across a spectrum, because we'd be living in a black hole, something of a vacuum, where gravity is a force we understand? (Which physics still hasn't solved.) So my last point is impossible to presume because there is no evidence to equalize our objective either way. So, this gets to my next point. The point I make is this. That if to be normal is based on human understanding for what is rational, or standards in behavior (i.e. psychology) then to what end is the self plausible? My answer.
The answer is simple.
That because their is none. No theory to the self, then no theory to what is. What is normal does not exist in real time. Therefore, we have branched our ideas to intercept for science. Whereas we've created something of empirically gathered (e.g. knowledge) based on what we believe is reason and observation in controlled environments on the basis of language. Rewind: all empirical data must also be rationally tabulated. My point in all this is if we accept conventional methods for which we establish scientifically guided (first) principles. Then why do we not govern the self under the same ideas?
If this makes sense to us, I don't know why it wouldn't?
My conclusion:
If you and I agree on everything as you - yourself and as me - myself have done. Then to my point, what is normal must equate to an intent. If we are of the same intent, from which the self is governed. This follows, that the self if contained in a system of order. Then, this self we both agree is what we se each other in reality. Your question is true. That the self is no different than that the reality you think is me and that I see is yours. I am talking about our identities as we have discussed in response to each other within our discussion group. I think of this as a controlled environment. Which follows that the self if contained is in a system of 'order'. My conclusion follows that only in a system of order that the self is displaced, I am referring to character. And if our constant state of self is to remain neutral in some form that is recognized as the me, or the you, or the I. Then all the self is - is inconclusive to evidence. As in law, legality searches for the self. The self who acted in search of crime, or is it that they acted out of character (i.e. outside the self's 'normal' behavior = the identity that "other's" find immaterial in describing you.) How do you know? It's the scariest thought I can come up with in search of your answer.
- Marco
====================
attention: Jeff Brademeyer
Note: as my dissertation above relates. . . does the self act knowing it moves into a higher state of conscious arousal as what is "normal" - or - does the self stay unconsciously stuck in a comfort zone and help maintain an identity of what I think of as homeostasis.
I'm being serious.
