»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Can Anyone Other Than A Recluse
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Can Anyone Other Than A Recluse |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. actually be himself? . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How is it possible actually not to be oneself? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
A philosophical answer to a psychological issue will often answer only the intellectual aspects of this particular question. The confusion comes, I believe, from two distinct meanings of the word "self" which we tend to use interchangeably: 1) The "self" is the same as the philosophical and grammatical "subject." Western Culture is particularly unclear on this sort of distinction, as rapidly becomes clear when you reflect of Freud's use in his metapsychology of the word "object" in this context. He's gotten little but grief on the matter for at least the last 40 years from people who should know better. When Essorant talks about the impossibility of not being one's "self," this seems to be the sort of "self" that it is impossible to avoid being, the impossibility of stepping out of one's particular grammar while operating simultaneously within its language. To do so creates a paradox of meanings at the level of the discussion. The other meaning of the word "self" is distinct: 2) The totality of the person in his own perception. (Worth noting here is Harry Stack Sullivan's definition, which suggests that the self is the person as perceived by the others in his life.) Under this (actually, in both of these) definitions it is entirely possible to hold multiple concepts of the "self," to identify with one and find one's own actions originating "outside the self" as foreign and a puzzle. Consider such problems as over-eating, or people who constantly get into the same kind of relationship jams with different partners. Others may be more adept at fooling themselves and others about the rationality of their behavior, and are fully convinced that what they do to themselves and others is perfectly rational and even laudable. This may even be the case a fair amount of time. It may also be the result of a life that is almost wholly pretense but which appears virtually ideal. These people look wonderful but spend their lives feeling hollow and depressed. There are more of them than you think. Huan Yi's question is reasonable. But first the incredibly social nature of such a question is worth savoring. Without others, a recluse does not exist, and his whole notion of self is utterly dependent on their actions as much as or more than his own. His time is filled not only with being himself but with pretending to be other people so he might fulfill the tasks he might otherwise be able to forget unless he choses to give up clothes and shelter and food beyond that which he gathers from wilderness he entrusts to other people to keep wild. I believe that the nature of us human folk is that we are constructed "in relation to." Forever after we are riding the line between, as the theologian Nels Ferre once put it, "Don't lock me out and don't fence me in." Bob |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You can always spot a good question when ,as soon as you start to consider the possibilities in-depth, the answer changes continuously backwards and forwards between yes and no. That’s what happened when I tried to answer your question. I think the answer depends, as Bob suggested, on the definition of “be himself”. I took it to mean that the person was free to act in whichever way he deemed fit - to do exactly as he pleased without suppressing any urges or whims contrary to his initial urge and whim. Acting, in fact, without amending or adjusting his behaviour for any reason. If that’s the case my answer is that nobody, in any practical sense, can be themselves, even a recluse. If pushed I can probably explain my reasoning given time. Good question though  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*push*  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Aw, c'mon, Grinch.  Elia Kazan's novel, "The Arrangement" addresses this...sort of. If you haven't read it, I recommend it, for whatever my recommendation is worth. But being yourself? I dunno. Wouldn't you have to know yourself first? And then decide if you were being yourself, which pretty much indicates past tense...because-- that would require an objectivity that is physically impossible, and no doubt the goal of wise men, prophets, and them that search for the philosopher's stone, since we are contantly in the midst of change, thus the old cliche' "All is now" thing would have to apply. Er...wouldn't it? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am the only one that may be myself. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Explain? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/buriedlife.html . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet. That's good stuff, John.  Now the only thing I'm wondering is why you asked in the first place! *chuckle* Shine on, sunshine!  <--now that didn't hurt much, did it? *chuckle* |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Knowing yourself is easy, the trick is not knowing anyone else. Knowing yourself. The real you is the one responsible for all those ideas and urges that you get but don’t act on. The influence of others. Is the reason you don’t act on them. The recluse can separate himself from everyone he’s ever met but he can’t remove their influence on his behaviour. Throughout his life the recluse has been conditioned or influenced to curb his urges and ideas until it’s almost impossible for him to act upon those urges. You could argue of course that those influences are now an intrinsic part of the recluse’s “self” which would mean that any action, however conditioned and influenced by others, was a true reflection of the recluse. Here’s the rub though. If the recluse hadn’t been influenced his actions would have been different, and those uninfluenced actions could be said to be a more accurate reflection of the recluse’s “self” than the conditioned “self“. Would the real recluse please stand up. A simplification My dog does what it wants, if it has an urge to do something it just does it, but that isn’t quite true is it. My dog is influenced by me, it may have the urge to chew my shoes but modifies its behaviour, curbs its urge, because it knows I don’t like chewed shoes. A wolf would chew my shoe, and probably most of my leg, right? A wolf must truly be “itself”, but that isn’t true either. A wolf may want to chew my shoe but it’s influenced by the pack just as my dog is influenced by me, it has to curb the urge to chew my shoe based on the influence of the other pack members. The pack leader? Even here there is a modification in urges, a suppression in the face of an offspring or a potential mate. To completely be oneself requires a total and complete isolation from others from birth, it’s possible to imagine a recluse that has never known another being, one who could completely and truly be himself but in practical terms it’s impossible. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Sure we're influenced by others, Grinch. We're also influenced by the weather, the time of day or night, and even occasionally by what we had for dinner last night. Influences color our choices. Influences, however, do not negate choices. What is "self" if not the choices we make? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Being dependant and influenced on/by other things and other beings is a native part of being oneself right from the beginning. It is not at all unnatural or not being oneself. Instead, if one were completely detached, it wouldn't be being oneself at all. For without the rest of the universe, one may not be a person in the first place. In order to be ourselves, I think we also need to be Cornered |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Grinch, Essorant, Serenity, Huan Yi: One possible answer to Ron's question, "What is "self" if not the choices that we make?" is to remind him that he is using a highly limited reference frame that is focused on the experience of the individual. It's a perfectly useful frame of reference. Many insights, such as the one he offers here, can be derived from it and applied usefully to everyday experience with good effect. It is not, however, the only useful reference frame. Once again I remind you all of Harry Stack Sullivan, who provides us with an interpersonal reference frame. Within This particular framework the self is defined differently. Sullivan talks about "self" as the sum of the ways in which you are perceived by other people. "You" serve as a locus for those impressions and are an embodiment of them. Other observers and researchers in the field have pointed out that there is really never such a thing as a human child or a baby in isolation. They are always part of a dyad, generally a mother-child dyad, and for the child to survive childhood in functional form, there is a minimum quality threshold that needs to be met. It's part of the work of D.W. Winnicott to show that the threshold needs only to be "good enough," not spectacular, for success. The work of Renee Spitz shows that if it's below that level, the result tends to be dead babies. Humans from birth require good enough social contact to even survive. At some point, if the need for contact and nurture has been met at good enough levels, not too much, not too little, then the child may begin to seek out its own preferences for levels of contact and intimacy, and seek to pattern contact and withdrawal in a way it negotiates with those in its environment. This would seem to offer yet another way of defining "self," by ongoing negotiation with the world of people. By definition, you would never be able to know yourself because you are in a constant state of flux along certain lines of development. Jane Loevenger in fact writes about typical lines of Adult Development open to everyone, one aspect of which is an increasingly complex notion of self, and an ability to observe the selves formed earlier in life and still functioning as current frames of mind from the separate, more completely articulated self still developing today, and to comment on one's own actions. Some thoughts off the top of my head. Any return thoughts? Best to all, Bob |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, once everyone who knows me dies I cease to have ever existed? Sorry, Bob, but in my opinion, defining yourself as a reflection is probably the biggest problem a person can have. And, honestly, from where I sit, it also seems to be one of the most prevalent. quote: Do you know of anything that isn't in a constant state of flux, Bob? Anything at all? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I thought about the other influences Ron, they’re certainly a factor but, probably wrongly, I saw them as influences on the urge rather than the possible action. Take the weather for instance, my dog Rocko absolutely hates the rain, my guess is that if I put my shoe on the lawn in a rainstorm the urge to chew shoes wouldn’t even enter his head. I may be wrong of course, he may still get the urge but be influenced by the rain into consciously choosing not to chew the shoe. That’s the problem with dogs, you can never tell what they’re thinking. Fortunately I do know what I’m thinking, when it’s fine I get the urge to do some gardening, when it’s raining I don’t. Oddly enough if I’m gardening and it starts to rain I eventually get the urge to stop gardening which sort of confirms that the weather can certainly influence my urges. But what about influencing my choices? I sometimes wake up with the urge to do some gardening but on opening the curtains find that it’s raining, initially my thought was that at this point my urge changes but it could just be that I make a conscious choice not to act on my urge based on the influence of the rain. Either way my urge changes and as I act in line with my urge I could be said to be “being myself“. So do the influences of others work in the same way? I don’t think so. Sometimes I get the urge to punch someone’s lights out, fortunately the influence of society and in particular the influence of my mother normally results in me choosing not to. My urge however stays the same, in this case my urge and my choice aren‘t in synch - I end up believing that I‘m not really being myself. Bob, Are there two versions of the self? Sure - the perceived facade presented by your actions as seen by others and the reality of your urges which are known only to yourself. You’re only being yourself when your urges and your actions are the same. At least that’s how I see it, though that might change. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Urges and actions the same? Grinch, that's a pocket definition of psychopathy, and, not to be judgmental about it, I suspect that psychopaths lack a judging self to evaluate behavior. The best they can do is substitute an observing self to do some mediation based on consequences. This means, as many of our prison population will tell you, that their error was in getting caught. Not all psychopaths are as bright as they believe themselves to be, they simply have less baggage to carry. The outer socially presented version of the self you mention is still another "self." I agree the thing is real, and that it's necessary. If we were all to walk around with our private thoughts and feelings hanging out in public, then we'd soon all kill each other off as a matter of paranoid safety. Jung calls this part of people The Personna, The Mask. Jung reserves the term Self, always with the capital letter, for the person who has integrated the various parts of himself into a pretty much whole entity. Myself, I've always thought this was a pretty good way of looking at the thing. Ron—I'm not sure what to say here. Sullivan has an interpersonal view of things, and he's one of the few people who actually understands that people don't grow up in a hermetically sealed container. Do I think that once everybody who knows you dies, you cease ever to have existed? I think the question is language play. I think at that point your self is effectively dead, in much the same way your body is dead when your body dies. I don't think either situation mandates you never existed. I think you enter into social mythology at that point or you don't, like Lincoln, or Tolstoy or like the the guy the cousin Jim used to play cards with when he was thirty back in Saint Louis. Odds are nobody remembers his name now, at least by that identifier. Defining yourself as the reflection of other people's perception of you may be the biggest mistake a person can make, but in practice it takes a nimble and constant awareness to even be aware of the processes by which it's done. Half an hour of doing counter-projective therapy leaves me exhausted by the effort of simply noticing what one person is trying to make me on a word by word basis. Certainly I miss much of the message and often I'm sure I miss the heart of it. How much of everything everybody you know says to you do you actually understand in terms of how each sentence conveys meaning and information about who you are? I think if you're honest, you'll probably end up saying, not much; I'm simply not used to looking at people that way. I think you're trying to take a subtle concept and make it simple enough to dispose of in a few quick words because you have other loyalties in terms of what a self ought to be or do. And yours may even be correct, mind you. I recommend a book by Leston Havens called Participant Observation which may be out of print but is worth reading on library loan. Sullivan is himself a very bad writer and the books that were transcribed from his lectures are very bad as well, while Havens catches the quality of the thought in lively and understandable language. I don't know anything that isn't in a constant state of flux. You're right. One of the things about the self, though, is that while there are always secrets that one keeps to one's self for private reasons, and while there is always the social facade once chooses for public consumption, the self has other aspects as well. These are perhaps more to the point. Nobody knows when you've built you're life or part of it on a misperception unless, afterward it comes up and gets corrected. Even so, there it was for a time, controlling your life. I was running a therapy group for recovering addicts. One member was absent for weeks. The group grew angry and resentful. I called his home, fellow members called his home, I sent him letters. Nothing got a response. After six weeks, when the group was in the middle of working through its rage, we found out that our member had been lying in the morgue, unidentified, the whole time. By shifting from unknown to known, the unknown segment of the self of everybody in the room enormously effected everybody. Then, of course, there is the segment of the self that other people know and the self doesn't. Much is made in comedy about this, the toilet paper on the shoe, spinach on the teeth, how nobody likes the guy who's so high on himself or how everybody is rooting for George, who never expects it, in It's A Wonderful Life. These are the minor examples. Major ones include character problems that the self remains unaware of because nobody will mention them. ( "Claudia is so darn shy she drives me crazy. I can't stand being around people that shy.") (Some of the framework above comes from material on the johari window. It's an interesting piece of theory I ran across in a book by Joseph Luft, who's the Jo in johari. There some slightly more complicated stuff on it in google, but it's still a good system.) That's why it seems likely that the self has, at the least, interpersonal aspects to it. That's one of the reasons why you can never entirely know yourself. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, Grinch, you would define self by your urges rather than what you do in response to those urges? Wow. I am one really terrible person, then. quote: Yea, but we're either talking about something very different than Jung's self . . . or this is a decidedly under-populated planet. quote: Bob, I would certainly agree with an interpersonal view of many things, but not everything and certainly not self. quote: What people say to me can only convey meaning and information about who they think I am. I've had some extremely close and intimate relationships in my life, and so far, no one has quite got it right. Their words are much more likely to convey information about them than about me. Even when they think they're talking about me. quote: Absolutely. The self has many facets and is very complicated. No argument here. quote: So do you believe misperceptions should be held responsible for what people do? I think perceptions, mis- or otherwise, influence our life, Bob, but I think control is much too strong a word to use. We make our own choices and, if we're going to be held accountable for those choices, we very much need to recognize where the control lies. In a similar vein, we also have to recognize that our perceptions, mis- or otherwise, are equally subject to choice. We pretty much choose what we see. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Perhaps it’s also a good definition of “being yourself”. It is if the urges and actions are of a criminal, sexual or aggressive nature, in that case a man truly “being themself” and acting in accordance with his urges may indeed exhibit all the tendencies of a psychopath, but not necessarily so. What do we call someone whose urges and actions match but aren’t of a criminal, sexual or aggressive nature? Happy? There may however be a problem with the liberal application of the psychopathic label, especially when trying to categorise the imagined recluse of my previous thought experiment who is a person separated from birth from human contact, because being anti-social has a pre-requisite that’s obviously missing in that scenario. By who’s measure are his actions criminal, sexual, aggressive or anti-social? I think what I’m trying to say is that truly “being yourself” is an impossibility beyond the confines of a constructed hypothetical thought experiment. The closest you can ever get is the mask that Jung suggests, or the “convenient fiction” described by Dennett. Both of which, as I believe Ron and even yourself have suggested, aren’t true representations of one’s real self. I believe I’m not the person you think I am - that version is just the person that social interaction requires me to be, my true self is redder in tooth and claw and thankfully kept in check. [This message has been edited by Grinch (07-12-2008 04:28 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ll take your word for it - my perception of your persona differs somewhat from yours but as you quite rightly point out: quote: |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The definition of an infant separated at birth from human contact is "corpse." Such children waste away and die from a condition that was once and still may be called "failure to thrive." Humans are social animals and are social animals from the first breath they take. Exactly how social any single human may be can depend on the package of genetics they are born with, the infections they acquire, the people in their surround, the social and political conditions at the time and probably other factors as well. Even orphanages, where there may be people around, but not enough time to develop a personal nurturing physical connection with the infant, will sometimes show a high proportion of "failure to thrive" children. Often the children will show greater than usual difficulty in later live in forming connections with life partners. If memory serves, there is a book called Children of The Kibbutz that reviewed research done following Israeli kids raised communally on some of the first experimental Kibbutzim. I must agree with Ron, Grinch, to the extent that he suggests that defining yourself by your wishes is insufficient; that it's too narrow. The influence of your mother has become a part of yourself, though a devalued and despised part of yourself. I would say that the effort of pushing it away, of devaluing and despising it, ends up taking energy away from parts of your "self" that you might wish to savor, develop and enjoy. If you actually think it's more "you" to punch somebody's lights out, I suspect your mother's getting a bad rap though. About age twelve most folks get the basic message that if they have the fun of punching somebody's lights out, then they're gonna wish they'd have figured out some other way of having fun, like amateur boxing, where it's okay to do so, or martial arts, where you can learn how to do it right, instead of doing it in a way that will get you in legal trouble and cost money and maybe jail time. If you're still blaming mom for that, you must be missing some of the major issues in your relationship, cause that one isn't very big. Your mom is part of yourself now, like it or not. Just as the urge is part of yourself. If you want to hit people and get hit back, there are many types of Karate just made for you. You can even box. If you'd rather go more slowly on the sparing, you can study some of the chinese internal arts, which you'll be able to study far into old age. You can make these things part of yourself and use the study of violence to transform yourself at the same time, should you wish to take your study in that direction. You can use your urge to explore and transform yourself. You can use your urge to make a bridge to that pesky mother part of yourself by learning to care for yourself in a better way than she was able to offer you. These parts of the self are generally there for a purpose, you know, even if they look strange in the beginning. When you can actually say, "Wow I really must be some terrible person then," that's not too bad. It's a good starting place because it's got some authentic feeling behind it. The problem raises its pointy little head when you don't allow yourself to look further, when that's all you allow yourself to see or say. I too am a pretty terrible person for all sorts of reasons. Boy, do I have a temper! Bossy? I'm more bossy than the cow of the same name. I could go on, and beneath the jokey tone I'm quite serious. I also happen to be a pretty decent guy at the same time, and that happens to be part of me too. I have to work at keeping all of me in mind, because it's very easy to just grab at one piece or the other. On the surface they seem to be mutually exclusive, but selves are full of contradictions, and we need constantly to work at keeping ourselves in balance. Did I mention sententious? At times I get sententious, too. Ron, I think, is right about the difficulty of achieving the balance of the Self in the framework of Analytic psychology. It's the kind of goal that people like to think they've achieved, like "the fully actualized person," from Maslow, or stage VI moral development in Kohlberg's schema. I think you'd actually have to be carried into heaven in a chariot of fire actually to have attained such a thing; but, being humans, we can't seem to free ourselves from trying. What rubes we are! quote: Of course people can only approximate the projection you try to place on them with counter-projective remarks. I'm only an out of practice social worker. Anything I say has got to be off base, let alone about a guy nobody's ever really understood before. A man's got to stand on his own, and the loneliness of a real individualist is probably too hard for anybody to understand. It's probably better not to talk about it at all. Social workers are all inexperienced and undertrained anyway, you can bet on it, and all he can probably talk about is himself, anyway. Bor. . .ING! About misperception and responsibility. I believe there are places the buck stops. I believe that responsibility can be assigned. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Bob continues the above posting: Ron, for a guy who doesn't believe that a self should be defined by what other people attribute to it, you sure seem to be trying to put a lot of words in my mouth. You claim not to believe in the concept, but with sentences like that first one in the quote above, you sure seem to know how to act as though you do. You seem to have tried the same style of attribution above when you said, "So, once everyone who knows me dies I cease to have ever existed?," once again making an attribution that required me to correct the way I was being defined. I'm not complaining. I notice that people do this to each other all the time in subtle or less subtle ways. I simply use the opportunity to illustrate how the process works in your own back and forth dialogue. I regard people who claim they aren't trying to manipulate conversations and relationships on an ongoing basis as folks who have chosen to be incompetent at what they do all the time anyway. To some extent it's a choice to lead an unconscious life.... A misperception has no agency and by definition cannot bear responsibility. One must be able to act before one has the ability to respond, or as folks have been saying for a while now, response-ability. One must look to the entity with agency. I could take other positions and argue them, as I suspect could you, but this is the one I believe most clearly fits my sense of the way things work. LBJ is responsible for the US momentum toward war following the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I recently stumbled across some documentation (I need to follow up on this; perhaps someone might help out if they get interested) that while the original torpedo boat attacks did occur, and North Vietnam acknowledged them and apologized for an idiotic local commander, the second incident which caused our congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in fact did not happen. It was apparently either a glitch or a fabrication in the lower ranks of Naval intelligence that was never actually communicated up the chain of command. The incident was buried until the past year or two. 50,000 death of U.S. soldiers, more than 1,000,000 Vietnamese apparently hinged on a lie, or a mistake or a misperception. Much of the history of the past 40 years could have been possibly very different without that war. Was LBJ responsible? Sure. The buck stops there. Even thinking he'd made the right decision, LBJ resigned, as well he should have done, given the situation. Nevertheless, there you have one misperception that took a lot of control away from a lot of people. The fact that LBJ wasn't aware of it, didn't matter. It didn't un-die any of the American soldiers or any of the Vietnamese. It didn't keep Watergate from happening. As for our perceptions and our choices of what we see, some of that may be true. But the research as I understand it doesn't seem to bear that out. The big problem the cortex has is that it's overwhelmed with information from everywhere, and it has only a limited amount of processing power to deal with it. Most of the brain works as an efficient filter. Most of the material about which you'd want to make those choices gets filtered out well before it reaches awareness. Most background noise, many colors, a lot of the words in conversations are actually filled in at a level below consciousness. That's why people sometimes don't see things sitting right in front of them; it's been filtered out before reaching consciousness as not important at this point in time. Some people can exercise some control over some of these functions, but it usually takes more time and effort to learn the techniques of control than most folks are willing to put in. Somebody skilled at T'ai Ch'i can push somebody else several feet into the air and across the room into a wall using about four ounces of force. If you were willing to practice long enough and hard enough, you could probably do it too. Not one person in a thousand is willing to learn, though. It's simply too darn much work. Nobody believes how loose and relaxed you need to be to make the skills work. Nobody is willing to actually learn to listen to what their body feels when it feels another body. Those are the sort of choices you need to make to be effective in the kinds of things I think you're talking about, otherwise you're simply too removed from your experience to have any idea what decisions have to be made, and to have the time and discipline to make them. I strongly suspect that anything less, simply on a straight neurological basis, is simply empty talk. A person's neurology and his thought process can't move quickly enough otherwise. It's a matter of pragmatics. Clearly this must sound zany to anybody with any sanity to them. But there are reasons that 80 year old masters can wipe out multiple young guys. Sure we choose what we see. But it's like studying foreign languages in a way. There's a major difference between wanting to be able to read ancient Greek and Sanskrit, and wanting to study them. You don't get to read either language by wanting to read them alone. Good luck with the transition. I hope everything comes up roses. Best from here, BobK. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I agree, in fact I’ve said so all along but that doesn’t diminish the usefulness of a thought experiment that posits such an occurrence. As far as I’m aware nobody has ever argued that Schrödinger never in fact owned a cat or used the argument that demons don’t exist as a counter to Maxwell’s theories regarding the second law of thermodynamics. quote: There are several options Bob, two of which are that your true self is the outward persona as seen by others which is based on what choices you make another is that it’s a culmination of the urges that come freely which instigate those choices. Unless you’re suggesting that the urges you get aren’t spontaneously derived from yourself, that they are somehow generated by another, I don’t see how you can deny that they are true reflections of yourself. quote: Thanks for the attempted psychoanalysis Bob but frankly I think you’re talking twaddle, but at least your twaddle is useful in one way - it lends credence to my argument. quote: If the twelve year old gets the urge to punch someone’s lights out and then actually does, is the act a true reflection of the twelve year olds self? If you measure it by his initial urge the answer must be yes, if you measure it by the external evidence of his action or choice of action the answer is also yes. So is the twelve year old simply being himself? If the thirteen year old gets the urge to punch someone’s lights out and then decides to curb the urge based on external influences, is the act a true reflection of the thirteen year olds self? If you measure it by his initial urge the answer must be no, the urge and action don‘t match, if you measure it by the external evidence of his action or choice of action the answer is yes. Why the sudden change in the attitude toward his urge Bob? One minute he was being himself the next he wasn’t - what changed? I’d say that at twelve he was being himself and at thirteen he was influenced by outside forces to amend his behaviour - to alter his “self” to fit the requirements of social interaction. His true self hasn’t changed, only his projected persona is amended - his mask if you like or his convenient fiction. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Because "the self" notices that things aren't always the fault of other people, and that it's no longer an accurate reflection of reality to say "everything would be wonderful if it weren't for them." "The self" notices that it's capable of mistakes for reasons of ill will or error or incomplete knowledge about the world. Especially around age 12, by the way, when "the self" is curious enough about other families to observe what the rules are for the way they function, it gets a powerful flood of new information because that's a developmentally mandated time. Because this is frequently a time when children got to middle school from grade school or begin having a hormonal surge and start looking at the world in a different fashion. Guys especially begin to make close friendships with other guys, and between now and the early twenties they can make many of their deepest life friendships. That's what's different between 11 and 12, and to some extent between 12 and 13. If a 13 year old gets the urge to punch somebody's lights out, he has hopefully been gathering a flood of new data that he wasn't motivated to gather or interested in examining a year or so earlier. He is now, for example, deeply interested in the question of what separates the actions of a man from the actions of a boy. His notion of "the self" includes a clear wish to form himself into some sort of manhood that is modeled on somebody he admires, his dad, a teacher, John Wayne, a hero that he's made, and this includes a set of values that will form the core of his adult behavior. There may be people sitting on top of this kid's head with a hammer , saying, you have to act this way to adapt to society, Johnny, but any kid worth his salt knows how to minimize the effect they have on him. He can pick and choose from what they want from him at some later date. His business is much more immediate. He wants to model his life and his behavior on some adult that he thinks knows what it's like to function in the right way in the world. Who's successful with women and work and gains the respect of those about him. Often "the self" can't get enough of watching and listening and thinking about how this person would behave in this or that situation. This isn't the twelve year old wanting to take a swing at some fool. This is the twelve year old trying to make himself a 21 year old and experiencing that business as a rush order, something vital and immediate. "The self" here is not looking backward at the impulsive behavior of childhood, though that will always play a part in "the self's" thinking and behavior, right up till the person "the self" constructs turns its toes up and dies. "The self" here has become forward looking and fascinated by its own developmental needs. That's why the U.S. Army for so many years used the advertising jingle "Be all that you can be!" It was perfect for the longings of this developmental shift. As is the current, "Dont be strong; be Army strong!" These appeals are strong enough to get kids to run away from home to follow them. Of course they're also Bait and Switch marketing. Thoughts, Grinch? I hope I'm making myself clearer here. "The self" isn't a static thing. Yours, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
A man himself is what he is, not what he does. He is a being, not an act. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Not really. All you seem to be doing Bob is explaining how we modify our behaviour to match societies expectations. That’s a given, nobody, as far as I know, is arguing that that isn’t the case, the question is whether the persona projected due to that modified behaviour is a true representation of the “self“. I don’t think it is. I’d go further in fact - I don’t think anything that’s modified can be taken as a true representation of anything. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Look at the man if you want to see the man. Look at the man's deeds if you want to see his deeds. But if you look at the man himself as if it is to look specifically at his deeds, or the deeds to look at the man, then you might as well try to look at a spot of the ground to see the whole sky or a part of the sky to see the whole ground, too. The only safe evidence you may judge a human himself is by his human body/soul presence itself. And even that will be for the most limited and mostly physical. "He is human" "he is tall, short, big, small, hairy, bald, etc". Any attempt to measure the man morally (good/evil) will fail to have any evidence in the man himself. For whenever you say he is "good" or "bad" that will only correspond to judging a deed or (part of a) condition, not the human himself nor as a whole. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That’s fine if you’re looking at a man, his deeds, the ground or the sky but where do you look if you want to see his true self Ess? Come to think of it don’t answer that - I’ve had a sudden urge to think about something else completely and I’m going for it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Many times, Grinch, I think that's probably true. If the thirteen-year-old punches people any time he thinks he can get away with it, any time he believe there will be no consequences, then yea, I'll agree he didn't really change. Do you honestly believe, though, that fear of consequences is the only way society amends behavior? The person who gives in to an urge and the person who denies the urge are NOT the same self -- even if they had exactly the same urge. To me, that seems to be entirely self-evident? quote: Do you know of anything, Grinch, that has never been modified? I sure don't. Which is the true self? The one who gives in to his urge to eat dinner or the one loosening his belt before finally leaving the table? quote: So all men are identical, Essorant? quote: I think you need to work on those analogies, Ess. quote: The soul is God's province, Ess, not mine. However, even though I think your logic is seriously flawed, you have nonetheless hit on a real truth. Full knowledge of self, like the soul, is likely reserved for divinity, not humanity. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Essorant. You may be completely correct, you may be wrong. The statement is about a black box. We have some idea about what goes in and we have some idea about what come out. We can talk about electricity and structure and anatomy and chemistry and behavior, but I don't believe any of these things add up to what you mean by what a man is. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. We're struggling to talk about an abstraction called "the self." This may be what you're talking about or it may not be, but unless you say so, how can I, at least, have any idea of where you're coming in on the discussion. I don't mind you coming in anyplace at all, I simply want to be able to talk with you and not past you. I feel that you've talked past me here. Let me take a shot at responding to what I think you may be saying. If I'm wrong, again, please correct me; I don't want to talk past you if I can help it. Plainly if "being" weren't important to you, you wouldn't have chosen "Essorant" as a name here. (I chose to use the double negative because it seems less fussy and as clear as other constructions. Sorry to all grammar wonks.) I'm pretty much clear that being and behavior may be a useful philosophical distinction. In pragmatic terms, if you lie, cheat and steal, your being is of no particular interest to me; I will try to avoid getting tangled-up in the mess you apparently generate for yourself and the people around you and will offer what compassion I can offer without ruining the people I can do good for and to the extent you can accept it. Maybe at some future time we will be able to work more happily together. I'm not always a pragmatic guy, but I make an effort. Best from LA, Essorant, Yours, Bob K. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, what a person does flows directly from what he "is". That's why we lose respect for some one who pays us an insult, because we intuitively know that the insult is not a detached accident aloof from his person. I don't think you can so neatly separate the two without reverting to some kind of platonism. Of course I differ from Grinch in that I'm sure the self is not merely the sum total of a conflicting bundle of desires and actions, though such actions are determinite of the character of one's self or soul. Perhaps it is similar to the way in which a particular number of particular words can never make a good story. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not really. All you seem to be doing Bob is explaining how we modify our behaviour to match societies expectations. That’s a given, nobody, as far as I know, is arguing that that isn’t the case, the question is whether the persona projected due to that modified behaviour is a true representation of the “self“. I don’t think it is. I’d go further in fact - I don’t think anything that’s modified can be taken as a true representation of anything. Dear Grinch, Oooooo-Kay. Lets look at it another way. Unless a child when born is accepted pretty much on the spot into an active mothering dyad, a society of two, the kid dies. I say mothering because it can be a dad, it can be a sister, it can be any of many different people as long as there develops on the mothering end what's called primary maternal preoccupation. On some level the nurturing person has to feel that kid is the greatest thing since air; and that person has to act, in a "good enough" fashion, as if s/he were not so much a person but a primary substance to that child, as utterly dependable as gravity. The two of them learn an elaborate language of gesture and sound that's got contributions from the genetic past but also has elements of mutual invention. The child teaches the mother in some ways as much as the mother teaches the child. It's in large part an improvised ballet. Within those bounds, there cannot be said in any psychological sense that there is a clear boundary between mother and child, and it is out of this matrix that the self of the child emerges. Now my question for you, Grinch, is what age is your true self? And why have "You" decided to put it there. And who are "You?" You are apparently somebody who has no right to speak for your "self" and yet seems to rattle on endlessly as though there was nothing wrong with that. I have no particular problem with me being me. You on the other hand question your credentials. I can do no more than to, for the sake of the discussion, take your point of view, and demand that you present your right to talk authoritatively for the Guy I know as Grinch. I have been perfectly willing to accept that you've had the right to speak for him until this point, but now you tell me that you are a phony, a dupe foisted on Grinch by the evils of society. You apparently find the price you pay to live among the rest of us too expensive to pay and you resent paying it. It's our fault for forcing you to pay. I say, show your credentials for having any right to speak at all for Grinch! Chose what you are willing to say and what price you are willing to pay and own your choice. If you claim to speak for the Real Grinch, speak up or acknowledge you are the real Grinch or convince me that there's some reason you have the right to speak for somebody you say you aren't. Acknowledge that those thoughts and feelings and impulses are a part of who you are now and are valuable but aren't the only authentic thing about you. Since you claim you aren't authentic, now is the time to give an authentic answer. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Nice system! It does work more quickly. Thank you so much. BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, whoever I am, I seem to be more confused when I read this thread than when I don't. And Bob? I was a "failure to thrive" kid, according to some diagnoses. They told my mom that and it pist her right off into mothering me. *shrug* We spend a lot of time apologizing to each other these days... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Grinch quote: I don't deny that that are true reflections of "the self." My quarrel is with the notion that they are the only true reflections of the self. The suggestion that "the self" must be antisocial makes zero sense to me. You've seen my above posting, Grinch. If you're not Grinch, identify yourself and stop using somebody else's name. If you are Grinch, why not speak for yourself? If the discussion is a waste of time around a pseudo issue, say so and let's move on. And Serenity, same thing with me, more or less. As you might tell from the tone of my postings, sometimes, I've always had to work on my empathy with people, and I've not always done so well. I do try to be clear, don't want to be obscure, but some days I think it isn't such a bright idea to get out of bed. At least I generally get my own jokes, though I confess they aren't always all that funny. I need to hire classier writers. Grumble grumble grumble, BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
BobK? (and btw? I work cheap.)  grins |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I thought about it, and I should have said: "whomever" I am....  I might be 'him'! (are we there yet?) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Apparently I congratulated Ron early. I wuz confozzled, cofounded and cornfuzed, what can I say. Still, it's good to be in a functional environment, and I swear that thinmgs were operating more swiftly when I said something. Shows what I nose. Mr. Bob. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Yes, we are all copies of the same identity: Human. We are just mutated a little from one copy to another. quote: I don't have any problem with judging men, for we are all the same things: human bodies. Anything else about us is not what we ARE, but what we DO. quote: Yes, I am talking about the "self" in the sense of what someone truly is. Oneself is simply a human body! He is a human body pretending that he is an image of God, or a compendium of the Universe. A human body pretending that his wealth is a "limb"or an extension of himself. Or a human body pretending to be a personification of something else or some compilation of his deeds. A human body often pretending to be much more: That is the true Self. quote: I don't lose respect for someone that tries to kill me, let alone insult me. I disrespect the act, but I still respect the person. It is called doing what is right, despite what is wrong. A man's deeds may be wrong, but the man himself is not. I respect someone, even if he disrespects me. Disrespecting someone only augments the displacement of disrespect, directing it toward people, instead of a bad manner such as disrespecting people in the first place. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-14-2008 03:40 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You can't have it both ways, Essorant. Either we're human bodies or we're what we are -- elemental particles sloughed off by a long forgotten giant star going super-nova. What we ARE is little different than the rocks and air and water around us. The only thing that makes us different, Essorant, the only thing that defines a self at all, is what we do. I am in full agreement that there is an important distinction between a man and a man's actions. However, we can't put a man's actions in jail so that we can protect society from them. Separating your judgment of a man and his actions is great -- until you want to actually DO something about those actions. You can neither reward nor punish actions; those are necessarily reserved for the person. In my mind, the distinction is most appreciable only when you want to condemn the actions but forgive the man. That's an important distinction, I'll grant you. It does not, however, help us define the Self. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, It's very nice to draw a distinction between being and action. I'm glad you can disapprove of the action and love the man. I too believe that a person can be suffering and his actions may be a distorted representation of his being. Perhaps he is ill. Perhaps his being is trapped in illusion. But I think you may have difficulty in saying "the self" is the body. You run into problems with questions about people who have been injured. If I have lost an arm, have I lost "my self." Or am "I" still here. How about the loss of a leg? Have I lost my self then? If I have, would that be a proportional loss of self, depending on the body part, in the same way that an insurance policy functions? What happens if I'm paralyzed at any particular level so I may have no experience of body. What happens if I'm in a sensory deprivation chamber? Surely you can see where I'm going here. Say you are communicating with a machine, and the machine is communicating back. You believe you are talking to somebody named BobK. Yet you are aware of Turing tests. Is this "BobK" a real person with a "self" or is he a machine? Other than sounding a bit wordy, he sounds almost human. Does he have a body and thus an Essorant approved "self" or not? How would you know? Especially if you're not going to get circular and depend on your definition to prove your definition is correct? There are centuries if not millenia of meditations about the ego that lead one back and back from "I am not this body" (because it changes constantly and decays, yet that is not my experience of my self) through I am not my relationships and I am not my wealth and I am not my success to I am not this train of reasoning and ends with "I am not this thought." And as I said above a few numbers back in this thread, If a guy lies to me or cheats me, that may be his behavior, and I may forgive him for it, but I have also been led to make a decision about the being that's at the wheel in there. I call myself "experienced" for having done so. Essorant, if you tell me that you're going to plunk down your kid's college money to buy shares in this guy's new scheme to air- condition the whole of the Amazon basin with zero point energy and your dog's old frisbees, I would be somewhat on the surprised side. I think of you as being "experienced" as well. If you tell me that his old actions forbid you from believing in his new plan, I would ask you to distinguish for me how that differs from deciding the guy himself isn't to be trusted. Is there some way it can be distinguished by a well-meaning outside observer? Because I haven't come up with a way yet. Perhaps there's some idea here I'm not getting. I'm open if it seems to cover the bases. Best, BobK. Click, Click. Clink. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, We are more than just "human bodies". I work in an ICU where we carry alot of those to the morgue for disposal (however reverent or ceremonious). And judging from the reaction of families, they know their loved one is "absent", though the body remains. Whether you want to call it self or soul, or even actions (though I think the sum of actions is still just shy a who a person is), there is more than the body. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Not a particularly believing man myself in many ways, but I've seen the same thing as Stephanos. So, yeah, what he said. BK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I don't see the problem, Ron. A sandcastle is both sand and the castle at the same time, likewise a human is a human and also the elements he is composed of. One condition doesn't vacate the other. The difference with our deeds though is that they aren't literally what make us, they are simply what we do with the force that the elements enable us to have and help maintain ourselves with in the first place. What we do is important, but what we are is even more important. If we weren't ourselves: humans, to begin with, we wouldn't have such abilities. Being "bodies" is not a trivial thing. quote: I agree. But we can still protect and help all men. We can protect society from the man's harmful deeds, and protect the man from his harmful deeds, as much as possible. In other words, we work for all men against evil, instead of against any man because of evil. And that is the way it ought to be. quote: I don't think one loses himself, but loses a part of oneself. Sometimes a more important part, sometimes a less important part, but nevertheless it is still a part of oneself. quote: For sure. Communication may only take place with something that has a body that enables it to communicate in one way or another, therefore I know it has a body, and therefore a "self" A rock also has a body, but the body doesn't enable as much communication quote: The difference is working against the actions (the problem) instead of the man. If you express that you are against a thing he does, that is much different than expressing you are against him or think that he himself is the problem. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Bob, I think the truth is that the body/self changes so much that it no longer has the ability to live anymore. The harsh reality of death is not the absence of the self, but the presence of the difference that the self/body is no longer able to live. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*raising my hand* Now this is all very interesting to me. Seriously, it is. So what I want to know is how do you guys suggest someone go about assessing who they are? If part of emotional maturity is taking an honest inventory of our own actions, owning responsibility and attempting to rectify past "sins", or at the least apologize to those we have offended, then I think we have to at least consider the part of our identity that is reflected back to us by others, doncha think? AND--if we go a bit further, then I think we have to conclude that the person we are is also a result of past imprinting (nods to BK) as well as current reactive behavior (creatures of habit?) as a result of that imprinting and dare I include a seed of hope for the person we would like to become? A few platitudes? "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." Okay. I get that. And I sure hope I get that compassion as well, but on the other hand? When we need to entrust someone, don't we "Judge them by their fruits?" and I probably have more questions, but right now I'm just wondering where the hell John went off to? My apologies to John if my familiarity with folks makes him uncomfortable, too. John? There's just something about that picture of you that brings out the "tickle monster" in me. (A form of torture, I know. )And BobK? I like you, I truly do. Sometimes my humor doesn't translate in print, so if my little smilie rolling on the floor in laughter seemed like mockery, I do apologize to you as well. I forgot a few platitudes: "You can't judge a book by it's cover." and "You can judge a man by the company he keeps." I was interested in what John had to say about the book thing, since he once quite honestly confessed that obese people made him feel uncomfortable. Now, since I just read about a woman who had a 140 lb. tumor removed, I'm curious to see if that proclivity has changed. (And btw? I'm guilty of the same thing, but just the opposite. When I see people so thin I can see their bones? I just wanna feed 'em--I equate "thin" with illness.) I've also kept some questionable company... so yep, I'm curious as to what you all think about this. Thanks in advance! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Your use of parallelisms and paradoxical language muddies your point for me, while it makes the language more interesting. In poetry, I like both. In conversation, my preference is that the flowers be accompanied by dinner: After my senses are intoxicated, I'd like something to chew over and digest, something that satisfies my hunger for information and discourse. I refuse to believe that a man who can teach himself Hebrew isn't focused enough to put his meaning into English plain enough for me to follow. Please. When everybody talks so cleverly, I tend to miss the point, and these philosophical conversations get pretty involved. It's not that I'm so down home when I write, mind you, but it's generally helpful for me to explain myself when folks don't follow me either. It makes me think things through in different language. Sometimes that changes my thinking a bit. For example, in thinking about your point, Essorant, as I was writing an initial reply, I began to ask myself what my assumptions were in working with somebody who wanted to deal with life-problems? Did I think that they were problems that were behavioral or problems that were inherent in "the self." So you've gotten me thinking about your point of view here in a way that I hadn't thought before. My provisional thought, by the way, was that I thought that the problems, to the degree that they were psychological and social, were in fact parts of the self, but the problems came in the limited ways that the self was able to think about itself and other people. That is, I actually am the terrible person that I've always thought I was. My problem is that I've limited my thinking, and that I am also other things in addition to being a terrible person. I am trapped as long as I believe I am only a terrible person or as long as I believe I've been duped into believing I'm a terrible person, because I cannot convince myself of either proposition. If I believe that I am only a terrible person, of course, then I am lying to myself as well. There are lies all over the landscape here, and it's simple to get trapped. Once I accept my rotten self as a real and important part of who I am, I can begin to claim other aspects of myself. I need to be able to see myself as complex. Certainly the description you offer, which splits person from actions and behavior, doesn't seem to work well for me. My experience is that selves are much more complex than simple; and that selves are composed of much more than goodness and purity. I would still appreciate an answer, if you feel the answer worth giving to the question I asked you a few days ago. As usual, I found myself being long winded about it: quote: I think you tried to take a swing at it a day or two later, but I think you actually skipped by the question part, which was, "Is there some way it can be distinguished by a well-meaning outside observer? " The referent to "it" can be read from the more extended quote I've offered above; there's only so much repetition I want to inflict here. Any thoughts on these matters by Essorant or by anybody else? Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Because I'm impatient, and I like to ask everybody the same question, I asked my son the same questions--- his answer: "I am that I am." (Um, my son is an atheist, too.) or? at least he thinks he is |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Serenity, Greetings, Friend! You might try asking your son if he is quoting Popeye, God or is trying to leave things ambiguous? Inquiring minds want to know! Best from BobK in LA. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I will! *laughing* |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
okayyyyyyyyy.... I made kitchen noises and my son did indeed come out of his cave. So, I stand corrected: He did not say, "I am that I am." He simply said "I am." nod, (mea culpa) I was the one who replied, "I am that I am?" and he said, "Yes." So I just asked him if he was quoting God? empahtic "No." I asked him if he was being deliberately ambiguous, and I got another, even more emphatic, "No." "Would you qualify what you meant by that?" He said again, "I am." And then he did this thing that he does where he walks the ceiling with his hands while his feet walk down our tiled hallway, and I heard his gorgeous girlfriend giggling, (this looks totally evolutionary, btw) but yanno? I suspect he is. I'll try asking him another time, though. I can ask more teens though, if you like. It seems I'm running a Youth Center this summer. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Let me get this straight ... You're saying that Death is not the end of self, but rather the beginning of a "self" that does not live or have the properties of life. But our whole concept of self is bound in what it means to be alive, not mere physicality like sand or hydrogen. I think you're taking a whole lot for granted and stretching (exploding) the definition of self beyond anything that can be discussed. So we're right back to the point of "self" being more than a body. Karen and Bob, Though God was first, Popeye can't be accused of plagiarism since his famous line is "I YAM what I YAM", not "I AM that I AM". Just thought I'd let the old sailor off the hook. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob It is not at all unreasonable to feel doubt or not trust someone after he cheated you or lied to you. Distinguishing a man from his deeds does not mean that we ignore what deeds a man did, or not associate him with them. By all means we do. But we should not treat him as if he is those deeds, or treat him as if those deeds make him who he is, or treat him as if those deeds define who is, as if those deeds are himself, for they are not. The man's self is simply his bodily whole, the creature we call the "human" Stephanos, Your paraphrasis doesn't do much justice to what I said. I simply meant that a body/self/person dies because he longer has the ability to live. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-16-2008 03:02 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, You have succeeded in making a distinction, as they say, without a difference. I don't see any way in which your treatment of the now untrustworthy person would be different if you were treating him cautiously because he was he was simply untrustworthy as a person, or because you found his behavior more than you cared to put up with. The extra steps and distinctions you speak about might be useful if you were a novelist wishing to describe the inner world of a particular type of character. If, however, you were trying to teach a martian how to treat other people, these are steps you would probably omit at least on your initial pass through your material. He would not need to know these things to act in any more convincingly human a fashion. It also "multiplies entities," and so runs counter to the principle of Occam's razor. Oh, you have set loose a herd of zebras at the Greyhound park! Now we must follow around with pans and brooms and rolling trash cans to clean up the mess that been left behind! Oh woe! Oh woe! And I must take extra showers today and run up my electric bill! Oh woe is me! For Essorant is not been paying attention and is multiplying entities! And the poor zebras belong on the Serengetti plain where they would be grazing and keeping an eye out for predators instead of running after a mechanical rabbit around a greyhound track! Woefully yours, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Well, maybe I know some negative things you did. From now on you are an untrusty person because I know those things. I will call you Bob The Untrusty. That shall be your Self. What's the difference? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, In terms of the way you treat me, nothing; there is no difference. In fact, if you don't treat me with a certain amount of caution, no matter who I am, I would suspect you endanger not only yourself but those around you as well. And given some of the radical things demanded of us by the people we may most idealize, we should likely extend our cautions in those directions, too. It has always struck me as more than a bit ironic that the people who seem to make the most strenuous call for the strict application of Occam's Razor tend to be the scientists. Along the line they seem to forget that William of Ockham was, I think, a monk or cleric of some sort and probably had little problem including God as one of the "entities" he too for granted. Unless you know something that suggests otherwise, Bill probably doesn't sell as close a shave as his revisionists would have him do. I feel if I could rib you a bit roughly, I might at least offer some soothing balm; Untrustworthy Bob that I am, I may as well add maliciousness to the list of those things I can be untrustworthy about. I've always wanted to be a man of mystery. Sincerely yours, Bob. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Having gotten to this point in the conversation, I've taken a moment to look back over the course of it and I noticed that during the time Essorant has been proposing his position, Grinch has been silent. I've been curious about this, since Grinch has proposed a point of view that I thought was paradoxical. That is, that "the self" is a creation of the child, and that any modification of that later under the pressure of society is a betrayal of the true self. The position has some history to it, certainly inside the community of poets, where Wordsworth seemed to hold it for at least a time ("The child is the Father to the Man..."). Wordsworth seemed to get it from Rousseau. Anybody with a stronger background in criticism and philosophy here should feel free to jump in with fore detailed or corrected information, by the way. Grinch asserts and honorable and a venerable point of view. It happens, though, to be a point of view that I don't accept, probably because my training makes it difficult to use that point of view as a place to begin helping people to change their lives. I find it impractical. Grinch seems to have left the discussion, however, once Essortant joined in. Where are you, Grinch, in your thinking on the subject? Are you thinking things over? Have you decided that things are still the way you thought they were but I've been too confrontative in my approach to the discussion? Might there be something I can do to help out here to ease the discussion along. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hopefully he is outside enjoying the Summer, instead of wasting time in front of a computer-screen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Feeling Dour, Essorant? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
feeling sarcastic, J-beaux? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m still around Bob, I’m just following Kipling’s advice and avoiding the traps. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Serenity, Why "J-beaux"? Are Jim and Bob the same person? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So let’s say As eventually-- You're steeped In the ultimate dark No sight or sound To surround you In an aura of self Well who my friend As you then mill around Is there finally left? . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you John. And Essorant? Since we're having enough trouble defining ourselves, I think I'll leave other people's identifications to themselves, okay? I have no idea who anybody is...  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I don’t find Ron’s example to be limiting in reference, and disagree that making choices is completely focused on experience. Or else all that I’ve not yet experienced defines me as much as what I have. Thankfully, there are holes there along with choices. I don’t see the self as an elementary rock that gets polished with experience. Though we like that thought and it sounds wonderful when someone says “She is a very polished individual,” but that’s only on the outside. Inside, she may be completely insecure and feel unkempt because she has a chip in her nail polish. So other’s perceptions of her are just as false as the nails she might be wearing, and her perceptions of herself are harsh. So, when the focus is upon her person does that encompass her self? Not hardly. I also disagree with this: quote: Yeah, until other people pry into your life and find that your personal indulgences have nothing to with them. Then they tend to act weirder toward you than the weird they found weird. Not that I know this...from personal experience or anything. Sullivan and many afore him can framework all they want to about interpersonal perceptions defining self, because I suspect they’d want a forever of writing about it just to try not to be so wrong. If everyone felt they could trust their sense of self to be accurately measured or defined by an interpersonal society of role players, why, then, are most driven to separate and establish one’s self, intrapersonally??? quote: That scares me. Even a cog has teeth and I feel this way of thinking always bites somebody in the butt. Such a belief is too wide open for people to pass the buck when their God complex card is no longer accepted in any major establishments. I can honestly say that I don’t ever want to truly embody any impression I’ve given anyone. I don’t want to be that static, or two-dimensional and easily objectified as such. Which doesn’t mean that impressions don’t count to me and how I project/present myself, yada yada. I am a source, but a fallible one, and don’t want to be held in place even by compliment. The self is intimately complex by my view, and should be respected as such without exploitation by definition. Is it any wonder why many of us have a need to lose our self in something or with someone? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Is it any wonder why many of us have a need to lose our self in something or with someone?" Nodding in agreement, for the most part. Then there is the flip-side, of trying to define, or sometimes re-define ourselves through other means, such as um, ownership of properties, our associates, and even through our creative endeavors, all extensions of the ego. Loved your thoughts on this Reggie, and it's good to see you here again.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Has anyone answered my question? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I gave you my answer - Nobody can be their true self , even a recluse. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear rwood, I wish you had said something that I might disagree with, here, rwood, but you haven't; nor do I think you've said anything that you would find Sullivan disagreeing with, either. Sullivan is a poor writer but a very subtle thinker. We are all too easily pushed around by the complaints and compliments of others, and we are, unless we are to be socially dazzled by the glamours and deceits of the manipulative, wise to be skeptical of them and on occasion of the more automatic behavior we ourselves may find ourselves prone to display. We too have been trained by experts. We too may be prone to be less than attentive to our social contributions. Your skepticism of this sort of thing is well observed and well grounded. Your cautionary note is wise. Sullivan would join you. I know I do as well. Sullivan is talking about something a bit different here, and the difference is worth thinking about. What he is trying to say is that within every statement that passes between two people (or more than two people, for that matter), along with what the identified content of what the statement is about (the grocery list? the way the car is running today? the nature of our current administration? what college would be a good college for little Kelly to attend?) there is an additional list of unvoiced assertions that person one is making about person two and the relationship that the two of them have together. The replies that the first person gets will be not simply to the overt content (college, groceries, car, politics) but as much and often more to the attempts to define the nature of the relationship. About groceries, for example. Person A is shopping and is getting person B's requests for inclusion. Included in the exchange is Person B's comment, "I'm sorry, I only have a minute, and I'm a bit rushed, but I'd like it if you'd pick up some. . . ." Person A responds, "that's okay, I'll wait till you come back. I want to make sure I get down everything you want. . . ." If we had more time and more space ourselves, we would be able to see that the two people are touching base around an ongoing discussion and disagreement they have about their relationship and which person is the most deferential, and the most polite. Both are uncomfortable asserting themselves, and this is the way they wage this argument. Each says, I am more polite than you are and they scarp with each other for this place in the relationship hierarchy. It is an ongoing discomfort, and neither of them is quite clear where it comes from, but there it is. Sometimes arguments like this, each attributing qualities to the other, the other accepting some and rejecting others, can get quite violent, neither person quite knowing where they come from. There needs to be somebody who is trained to listen to what's actually being said to untangle these things. It's not on the level of awareness that rwood suggests that it is. Would that it were. Sometimes the problem can appear to be about a car. Person A says they brought the car in for another checkup and that the cost of the checkup was X dollars. Person B says, That's outrageous! You ought to sell that car! You've had it for 20 years! Voices get louder, charts come out, doors slam. Discussions about who has the right to be the designated expert, and who is the person to make the decisions about the disposition of a piece of property in a relationship are certainly common enough. During discussions of this sort, however, the discussion sounds as though it were about the property, and not about the distribution of power and control in the relationship. Each is asserting they have the right to make the decision because of superior knowledge, gender, power, whatever, without actually coming out and saying that is what they are struggling to define. Each tries to define the other at the same time as having some different qualities. The struggle, then, is a struggle to define each other. In these struggles, there is usually no clear cut winner. Usually each person accepts some small shift in how they see themselves in relationship to the other and in relationship to the world. rwood has raised a very interesting point when she talks about the person whom we present to others and the person whom we feel ourselves to be. This point comes up repeatedly in this conversational thread. We have spoken about personna as a description of this public self, but there are other ways of looking at it. And there is certainly the matter of how alien the "inner" self feels from the self that that we show to the world. With some of us, the difference can be enormous. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
John, I answered the question as well. Oneself is simply the actual and bodily being, rather than an image, reflection, or deed. Homer even makes a distinction between souls and selves at the beginning of Iliad. He describes Psychas heroon "souls of heroes" being sent to Hades, but autous "(them)-selves", the men themselves (now corpses), being left as pray to the dogs and vultures. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, Near as I can tell, everybody is taking a good shot. Answers differ. This seems reasonably clear from the text so far. Essorant, Grinch, and Ron have all come up with good answers. rwood's recent response has been thought provoking; and mine's not bad. (The Homeric addition was a very nice touch, by the way, on Essorant's part. I can count on Essorant to bring new material to the table even in the most trying of times. Thank you, Essorant.) In all this back and forth, I wonder what your thoughts on the matter might be. What do you think in response to your own question? I'd be interested to hear. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Let me be shamelessly Cartesian for a moment ... For me the "self" should be (and always is) tacitly accepted as real, even if it escapes or denies the need of precise or technical definitions. To me too much debate about the self amounts to mental moonshine, or sophistry. The evidence for this is that each of us will revert right back to language that reflects an undoubted acceptance of self and other selves, after we're done being philosophic. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy such discussions as much as anyone. But at the end of the day, if someone fails to pay a debt to me, even if it is as small as five dollars, all that jargon goes up in smoke. So outside of debating the precise definition of self, or doubting its existence, the question of the "true self" is more interesting to me. From my religious and philosophical viewpoint, it shows that each individual is at least dimly aware of an ideal person that they should be. We are all therefore false to our own deepest convictions and knowledge. The Hebrew word for sin is to "miss the mark". Why else when we do something ghastly do we say things like "That wasn't me" ... "I wasn't myself" ... or "I didn't mean it". There is a dualism at play within the "self", and the psyche is a battlefield. From this perspective, both self-perception of self, and others' perception of self is flawed to some degree. But there is at least one divine perspective that is accurate, and revelation is possible by many means, not excluding self awareness and feedback from others. I guess in that sense, I agree with John that no one is quite themselves (and I would add, especially a recluse, since anti-social behavior is not ideal). And yet without a belief in an ideal self, I don't see how that conclusion can be reasonably held. Interesting topic. and as always this 'self' has been entertained at watching you guys quibble Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Always a pleasure to hear from you, Stephanos. "Anti-social" is not the same as to be alone." Monks and nuns of whatever persuasion have spent considerable time "alone" without being anti-social. "Anti-social" is commonly spoken of as behavior that is actively damaging to society, and as the product of personalities who generate this activity. Seclusion can often be regenerative, refreshing and of spiritual value. Jesus is reported to have benefited from it, as have lesser folk. Should anybody doubt the validity of Sullivan's point of view, it would be instructive for them to see the number of times others have attributed to me the notion that there is no self. This is something I do not believe. But it is an example of how Sullivan suggests folks will try to attribute inappropriate qualities and thoughts to others. Perhaps eventually I will stop objecting to the false characterizations of my point of view. Sullivan believes that the self is the sum of the views that other people hold of you. This is a subtle point of view, easily oversimplified, easily disposed of when it is oversimplified. I wish I were better at explaining these things than I am. I disagree about the true self and the ideal self being the same thing. There are all sorts of ideals, and while the sorts of ideals you hold might be terrific, not everybody holds with them. People can get pretty weepy about ideals that would send many of us screaming from the room. Some of them aren't too happy about me, amazing as that might sound. Some aren't too happy about either of us. I suggest to you that people struggle constantly to avoid to self that's there now when that's the self we have. We wage a constant war against it instead of inhabiting it and feeling it and learning our way around it, as if there's always someplace better to be. I think there's not. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I agree with this very much. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Stephen, It’s interesting that you, me and Bob have each chosen one of three constructs of Freud’s structural model of the psyche as the source of the true self. You’ve plumped for the Super-Ego, the supposed ideal, Bob seems to be leaning towards the Ego favoured by Sullivan and I’m sticking to my guns with the Id. Bob seems to have the advantage in that the outward appearance or projection of “self” seen by others corresponds exactly to the Ego but as Ron pointed out other people don’t really know us which seems to suggest that the projected self isn‘t the true self. There’s also a problem that the Super-Ego option shares with the Ego option - they are both seemingly absent at birth, only forming during the socialisation stage of childhood development. Which would require the obvious assumption that children don't have a real "self" until they aquire one through social interaction. Which leaves the Id - instinct and urges that are clearly present from birth but later suppressed by the socially instigated and influenced Ego and Super-Ego. Of course this relies on Freud’s structural model being right(ish). |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Grinch and everyone, i knew somebody would eventually slip in some Freud. According to Mr. Freud, the Id: quote:wiki If one personified the aspect of the Id, the above description would sound very much like a “Daily Double” clue to the questioning answer- “Who is: Hot in Hollywood?” Alex. The Ids could very much be among us and many whose ratings and popularity are boosted from such Idish behaviors, until they fall from some sort of displaced grace. By Freudian structure, ALL Egos and Superegos are just Ids in disguise. This is highly problematic in that if the Id is really only a part of the faceted human psyche-exposed, then someone needs to tell all the Egos on horseback or the Superegos who abolish/admonish the Ids, that they are, in essence, overriding and erasing part of themselves, making them more likely to try to do so to everyone else who remotely reminds them of that self. unedited, and uncut, I am on this, because I must run now. Hack away me friends. It’s always a pleasure to be thinking with you. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
rwood, quote: I was sort of quoting Freud in my earlier posts - sorry if that wasn’t clear. quote: Luckily there are no personifications of the Super-Ego and no perfect representations of the ID either, at least none older than five years old. In anyone older than five the outward persona is a projection and construction of the Ego which sits in the middle deciding the best course of action. It’s easier to understand if you think of it like this: The Id is what you want to do The Super-Ego is what you should do And the Ego decides what you actually do. If you were hungry and saw a roast chicken your Id would suggest eating it all, your Super-ego would suggest giving it to someone more hungry than yourself and the Ego would decide to share it. If asked to choose one to be a representation of the true self I’ll still be sticking with the Id based, partly, on the fact that it’s the only one that remains if you run my earlier thought experiment and also that the Id is the only one that exists from birth and can possibly exist independent of the others in a state that can be described as the “self”. [This message has been edited by Grinch (07-23-2008 04:02 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sort of. When James Strachey put The Collected Works into English, he made some decisions that Bruno Bettelheim says weren't such good ones. Whatever you think of Bettelheim as a psychoanalyst, his linguistic skills were excellent. Among the things he pointed out was that Freud did not use the words Id, Ego, and Superego. These were Latin inventions used by Strachey. The words Freud used were Ich, Es, and Uberich, which really give much more of a sensation. The I, The It, and The Over I. They're really much more tactile, aren't they. The word he used for Psyche wasn't "mind," as so many people say, but actually "Seele," or soul. The It, the Id, is by definition unconscious. It starts off unconscious and it stays unconscious through the whole life. At least as I understand the structural theory. The Ego is partly unconscious, and parts of it stay that way, but there is some commerce between the unconscious parts of the ego and the ego itself during altered states; and depending on the permiability of those particular ego boundaries. There is also an unconscious part of the Superego. Parts of the infantile superego can be quite savage indeed, especially those that identify with infantile phantasy (the spelling with the "ph" is intentional; this indicates a particular sort of material discussion by Kleinian theorists that goes a long way toward explaining the behavior of some serial killers. Doesn't justify, simply explains). If Grinch (Lord help me for suggesting such a thing) wants to get some support for his point of view, he might have a look at Introduction To The Work of Melanie Klein by Hanna Segal. Hopefully you will ignore the suggestion or open the the book, read two pages, and run off laughing hysterically. It has good breasts and bad breasts and is very serious. Heh Heh. And thank you, rwood, for your interesting comments. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: You'll get no argument from me about that. Of course when I hear the term "recluse" I think not of the religiously motivated person (who typically feels that time away from a broader community will somehow benefit that community ... and who also lives in a religious community), but of the misogynist who only has ties with others because he or she must. quote: But there are other possibilities here right? You could have misunderstood Sullivan. Or (as you yourself conceded the possibility) you could be inept at communicating it. Or Sullivan's view may hold (despite his own perception or yours) genuine tension with believing in a true self outside of perception. Or we could just be stubborn or stupid. quote: But aren't the false characterizations merely our perceptions of you? (think about that a minute) I do appreciate what you're saying. I am not minimizing Sullivan's view since I am unfamiliar with it. But as you have stated it, it seems to be true but incomplete. I too believe that the views of others may hold true when it comes to the self. But then again, so could self-perception. Or they could (the most likely scenario) both be distorted, partly right and partly wrong. If there is a divine perspective (or even objectivity involved with the self) then perceptions may be held as important but not all-encompassing. quote: But I wasn't making perceptions of the ideal (which may be particularly flawed in various degrees) out to be the ideal itself. I merely mentioned that the fact that most people want to change into some nebulous "better person" they see dimly, suggests that there is something solid in the idea of trying to attain to being one's "true self". Someone's answer to an equation might be wrong, but they are right in believing there to be an answer. quote: But avoiding the nature of "self" would not be conducive to becoming one's true self now would it? There are still things we wage war against, not in the spirit of ignoring self, but of facing ourselves. I'm not ignoring my car engine (or the distinct properties of it) when I change the oil or sparkplug wires. Of course I would be a fool to try and force my gasoline engine to be happy with diesel fuel. Finding one's true nature certainly means accepting proper form. But if one accepts form, then much has to be rejected in virtue of it. Grinch: quote: As I suggested to Bob, what I was speaking of (which can of course be describe in Freudian terms) is the ideal self and the various imperfect perceptions of it. Since I do not equate these two, I am not caught in the trap of having to think infants don't have real selves. Probably where Freud and I differ is that for him the ideal (superego) seems wholly within and dependent upon the psyche in a self-referential way. Whereas I think the "ideal" has another ontological basis than the human psyche. quote: The problem with equating the Id with self, is that there is whole spectrum of self-identity that the Id does not include. Your very own reasoning about Freudian categories and abstract notions of "self" have nothing to do with the Id, since the Id has nothing to do with rationality. Are we to conclude therefore that none of your arguments have anything to do with YOU? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stephen Very interesting conversation. Sullivan himself is very difficult to read. He writes poorly. Leston Havens Has a book called Participant Observation that's brilliantly written, if you can find a library copy someplace. Sullivan isn't the only view, but he's the only completely social view that I find satisfying at this point. And to see somebody who's good at using the style is jaw dropping in it's effect. Sullivan was one of the few people who worked well with schizophrenics and other very crazy folks. He simply sidestepped their expectations in ways that it would take too long to explain here, especially when the subject is "the Self" and not specifically Sullivan. Certainly the "false characterizations" are part of others' perception of me. If you were to think on that comment of yours, you would actually have learned a bit about how I'm constructed, because it's right there. You are seeing a paranoid trend, you're seeing me display it, and you're seeing the social interaction that creates and maintains it. It's reasonably mild, and always has been, but it's always been there as well. You can see similar displays of how folks are constructed in everybody's everyday conversation. Unless you're doing therapy or there's some special call for the skill, you simply don't pay attention. It's hard work keeping track of that stuff on an ongoing basis, you know. As for the possibility of there actually being an objective view of the self, I would have to say that it may theoretically be possible in the sense that I don't want to rule out the law of gravity being suspended in Denver for 45 minutes on a fine winter afternoon. But I wouldn't want to put serious money on it. Certainly not more than a quarter. At a minimum you'd have to posit a provable supernatural point of view, and while you're a pushover, I know some people who aren't. As long as it's people, there's some sort of bias. quote: The child is always in a social world. It starts out in an extraordinarily close mutually created mothering relationship and in, hopefully, a family system. There is a self in formation from the beginning. There isn't very much insulation on the neurons for a lot of connections to be made in a complex, adult fashion, but it's a primitive and very real self that develops in an unfolding social context. The Superego, in Freud, is a complex psychic organ. It has one section which Freud calls "the ego ideal." There are lots of other parts. I hate to tell you, Stephanos, but there have been millions and millions of folks since Thomas a Kempis who have had Christ as their ego ideal. Even when it is not, the ego ideal is most often an external person that the ego/self feels they would like to model their life on. Part of the deal is that it is an external person. Typically this fills a sense of deep personal need. As I pointed out in a post just above, the problem with identifying the Id with the self is the Self is conscious. The Id, by definition, is unconscious and remains so throughout life. I believe it is never conscious. Freud seems to differ when he says, where Id was, there shall Ego be. In this case he is talking about the recovery of organized themes from the Id with interpretations. It is difficult to know where such material is coming from, Id or unconscious ego material or even unconscious superego material. It is also unorganized except in terms of association. Should you want actual evidence of material related to the self, you would need to do an analysis of the defenses, taking them in order and resolving them in order; and this is an ego analysis or what is usually called "Character Analysis." It was developed in the late teens (1919 or so) by Wilhelm Reich. While Character Analysis is still accepted in the analytic community, little if any of Reich's other work is. There are parts of the ego and the superego that are unconscious as well, but the boundaries there are somewhat more permeable and there is some flow back and forth. On the whole, I don't know of any analytic thinking that would attribute enough actual structure to the Id the believe that it is the template for the self. I would once again at the risk of being boring repeat my assertion that the infant's world is a social world from the moment of birth, and it is from that experience that I believe the experience of self comes. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don’t think they have anything to do with my real self if that’s what you mean, my arguments are constructs of the Ego. Bob, quote: It’s actually defined as preconscious Bob. Conscious thoughts are those known and recognisable by the individual, unconscious thoughts are below the perceptual level - autonomic functions such as Sympathetic and Parasympathetic responses may fall into this class depending on who you ask. Sub-conscious thoughts are those suppressed from the conscious. Preconscious thoughts are those formed outside the control of the conscious but are clearly accessible and recognisable by it. The Id falls squarely into this category. If the Id were wholly unconscious I wouldn’t know when I had the urge to do a bit of gardening. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, You're talking about a different Freudian model, and are getting the two of them confused. You were originally talking about the Structural Model, Id, Ego, Superego, which is as I described. You've now conflated that with an earlier model, one which Freud used around the turn of the 19th Century, which used three basic systems, The conscious system, The Preconscious System, and The Unconscious system. He was trying to get from a purely psychological model to something more in line with what he thought of as clinical neurology at that time. He wrote a manuscript, I don't know if it's lost or suppressed, called Project for a Scientific Psychology which he was writing around the time of his The Interpretation of Dreams, in the late 1890's. If in fact you had intrusions of straight Id material into your daily life, you'd probably be having significant difficulty. Only parts of the ego and superego are conscious. The Id is foreign material, and organized differently than ego material. It's what's called Primary Process material, and it's not coded in the kind of language most people speak or understand easily. To somebody talking Primary Process, to say "My name is Jesus Christ," is a perfectly straightforward communication. This is not how you tell yourself it's time to work in the garden. I suspect you may not have heard many people with a thought disorder speak, or people with clang associations or flight of ideas. These things are analogous to ruptures of consciousness, and Primary Process material comes through unfiltered. The ego is not functional for one reason or another. Grinch, an attempt to understand makes your brain hurt. Eugen Bleuler was a colleague of Jung and was for a time the director of the Great Psychiatric institute at (sp?) Burgholzli, in Switzerland. He wrote a book on The Group of Schizophrenias that was published around 1900. It's still a classic in it's field for its meticulous work in transcribing the speech and symptomology of some of his patients. It's available in good libraries, and probably on interlibrary loan. You should try reading some of the transcriptions and get a bit of the sense of the nature of primary process thinking. Now this is distorted primary process thinking, schizophrenic primary process thinking, but it still moves with the characteristic rich interplay of association and symbol and image. It is not immediately accessible. It needs interpretation before it can be translated into digital, linguistic form, even if some of the appears as words in the first place. One of the stories told about the famous Dr. Milton Ericksson, who was for some time the director of Worchester State Hospital in Massachusetts is the interchange he had with a schizophrenic man who insisted that he was, in fact, Jesus Christ. Ericksson reportedly thought long and hard before he approached the guy, and when he did, he realized that his goal was going to be to get the patient back to work and on his way out of the hospital. "So," said Errickson,"I hear you're a carpenter. . ." Affectionately yours, BobK |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm accumulating yet another long reading list here... thanks guys (and gal) Bob? I've never met a therapist so willing to chat up the subject, so I appreciate all of the references. (I find Reich particularly fascinating, but he's a topic unto himself--whomever he might have been.) Grinch, it's always my pleasure to read a discussion that you are involved in--you enhance each subject with your indepth analyses. I still don't know how to go about assessing my own identity, though. I'm not sure if I wanna, either. But this is a great thread, for sure. So just me saying "thanks"! <--not actually meBut the idea of a bouncing blue ball representing me doth amuse me very much. *chuckle* |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’m not confusing them Bob - I’m using them to counter your use of them. After all weren’t you the one who introduced the conflation: quote: Were you confused perhaps when you put the two together in the above statement? Personally I think your use of the two models was legitimate (even though it was inaccurate), the two models aren’t mutually exclusive. Can the Id be defined as instinctual thoughts and urges? I maintain it can, you seem to deny it. Are urges constructs of the unconscious yet accessible and knowable by the conscious process (preconscious)? I maintain they are, you seem to maintain that they’re not and are part of the unconscious process. Is that about right so far? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Well if I say that your proposed dichotomy is absurd, take comfort in the fact that I'm not really disagreeing with the real you ... only your silly ego. Odd for er .. you to have such a respect for the rational and the conscious but not a view of self that would include it. Bob, We've already discussed your reluctance to accept Divinity. But I still don't understand how you could have a theory of self that is wholly subjective, if the subjective is only perceptual of some independent reality. And I think it would have to be if we've ever been wrong about ourselves, or been misunderstood, misdiagnosed, etc ... To me if basing self in instinct (ala Grinch) is inadequate, then so is basing self in perception. That's not to say that there isn't much to learn from the kind of theorizing you speak of. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: To all intents and purposes Karen you I don’t think you can - apart from in hindsight or through the opinion of others. Even if you could it wouldn’t be a representation of your true self - your persona or identity is completely different from your true “self”. My argument all along is that the purest essence of your true self can’t be used to define who you are. That’s because your true self was abandoned when you were about five in favour of a far more stable evolutionary strategy which amends your thought process and creates and projects a skewed representation of you that we call persona, or identity, or if you like, who you are. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, someone experience trauma at that age? Would that be cause for emotional arrestment, or is it possible to abandon the true self entirely? Y'see doc, I have this friend... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Wouldn't it be synonymous to say ... "The purest essence of your true self can't be used to define your true self?" Do you have a criteria to judge what is purest, or is it simply that which comes first, or that which is unconscious? quote: Though I don't accept your evolutionary paradigm, it is interesting to me that words like "stable" and "amends" raise the question of whether the abandoned or the attained should be considered more "true". I seem to be somewhere in the middle of you and Bob, since my view would include both the perceptual and the instinctual, and yet reserve the right to be critical of both. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Karen, You’re making a quantum leap into a whole different subject by introducing the additional and separate process of emotional response. We aren’t due to get to that point until 2012. Off the top of my head though, and for what it’s worth, here’s what I think. For the sake of argument let’s say that my silly ego is somewhere near right and that the true self is simply your instincts and urges. If that’s the case you can’t abandon your true self because you don’t control the production of your instincts and urges in the first place, the best you can ever do is control them through your ego with a little help from your super-ego. In this scenario emotion plays what could be seen as a minor role, it’s the payback for your ego’s decisions: You see a roast chicken your ego weighs the options and decides to share it, the emotions department audit your actions and release a dose of happy if it decides you made a good choice. I said “what could be seen as a minor role” for a very good reason, once you’ve had a taste of happy you generally want more and your ego factors in the memory of acts that make you happy when it’s making future decisions. Which makes emotions a pretty powerful persuading factor. So how would trauma affect the scenario. Well the first effect it could have is to unbalance the emotion department so much that it screws up the audit. The result is a release of happy following an inappropriate decision or even a total reluctance to release happy under any circumstance. The trauma could also affect either the Id the ego or the super-ego or all three causing an imbalance in the ego‘s ability to reach rational decisions. If the ego favours the super-ego the effects wouldn’t be too bad - you’d probably end up being another Mother Theresa or Gandi. If your Id was favoured however you’d be closer to Hannibal Lector. I don’t believe however that the imbalance could ever be total, even in the most ardent psychopath or committed saint there’s always a portion of their persona that can be attributed to the influence of their opposite nature. There’s a further complication though, the Id, Ego and Super-ego and even the department of emotions are all one and the same, think of it as a single entity with multiple personalities. In what most people regard as a well balanced individual all the parts are.. well.. for want of a better word, balanced. The differences between people are reflections of tiny imbalances between influencing parts. All I’ve just said is my simple, and perhaps silly, opinion of course, arrived at after about five minutes thought between snatches of Grey’s Anatomy so I wouldn’t take it too seriously if I were you. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well now. This is much food for thought (and ever more questions) but first and foremost I wanna know-- How'd you know (speaking of food)that I was planning on roasting chicken for supper?(Two small hens, actually.) Um, I mean my friend was gonna roast chickens!  I think I'll just tell her to marinate the chickens, and cook the spaghetti instead. The food will come out better when she's less Hanniballish, anyhow. Thank you, Grinch. *smoochies* I'll tell her to not think so much in the meantime. I need some time to um, digest this, anyhow. *laughing* |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, Id and It are the same word, one in Latin translated by James Strachey or A.A.Brill and focusing on a medicalized approach to psychoanalysis, and the other "The It" is a translation of the same word from the German by Bruno Bettelheim. The German word is "Das Es," and it is the word that Freud uses to describe "the Id" in the Structural Model. The same differentiation is implied in German as it is in English, if I remember my long ago and far away German. That is "I am myself, me," "It is something other and distinct from myself ; 'not me,' or foreign." Das Uber Ich, which Strachey and Brill both translate into English as the medicalized and latinate "Superego," Bettelheim renders roughly as "over-I," which renders the looming judgmental effect the word has in German. The one German award that Freud got in his lifetime was The Goethe Award, and though you wouldn't know it from the quality of the translations, that award was for the quality of his writing. As you can see, it's unlikely that Freud would believe that the Id, which he did believe was a repository for all sorts of material—and which I do as well, by the way—would have much to do with formation of the self. He thought of the Id as Other, and foreign, certainly that's the way he deals with it that way in the Structural Model, which is his late model of the psyche. It is different in substance and intention from the hydraulic model which you mentioned earlier, and thought I was conflating with the structural model. Elements of the structural model may be conscious or not. In my earlier posting I mentioned how the contents of the Id appear in the conscious mind as Primary Process material. This is not material that can be easily mistaken for anything that is particularly comfy, and the sort of thinking process that runs it doesn't communicate well with conscious ego material. It often gives the psychological impression of a person walking around impaled on a piece of a phone pole, that of a person invaded by foreign contents. This is called ego-dystonic symptomology. The symptoms feel foreign. Often more disturbing are symptoms which seem to have been accepted by the person as simply part of the natural course of things, and appear a happy part of the days' normal schedule, get up, grab some coffee, go to work, come home, play with the kids, dismember a girl in the park, shower, make love to your wife, get up the next day and go through the whole daily grind one more darn time. These symptoms are ego syntonic. They aren't much basis for a self either. At the risk of boring you, I'll repeat my opinion here, that no child is born into anything other than a social environment. The formation of a self is an interactional task, one accomplished between the child and the home environment. The child raises the parents in many ways as much as the parents raise the child, and the self is a matter of life long growth and transformation. Parents don't have to be great or even good. All they need to be is good enough. Grinch, I'm sorry if I'm being tiresome about this stuff. I can't and won't say that you're wrong about the possibility you raise. I'm not the good Lord, nor do I play one on T.V. But what I'm saying about Freudian theory is pretty much on base. Freud covers a lot of this stuff in his book The Ego and The Id, and he covers different pieces of it in different ways throughout the collected works. He goes through three different theoretical models during his lifetime, and they're all pretty decent, but they're probably not as useful as the current theoretical models if you're looking for accuracy. The current models are usually much more interpersonal. We need to account for the fact that humans are ecological beasts in a psychological sense as much as any other, and that while much of what goes on in a person's life is personal, much also is ecological and needs to be understood from the whole of that dimension as well. This doesn't make a real self less real, it makes us need to look at what defines it more inclusively. That's my thoughts for now, at least. What about yours and others. I tried to work other people's thoughts into this response, though I haven't singled people out by name. Regards to everybody, though in the more and more interesting discussion. Oh, serenity, I hope I haven't revealed any real trick of the tribe? The therapist's union might hunt me down. I'm not practicing right now, my most serene one. And the informations there for all who have an interest. BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Bob? It was an observation, not an accusation. Paranoia is such a part of me that I own it as "Karenoia". *shrug* I like to think of it as anticipating possible complications. Or...hyper-awareness? *grins*I find your willingness to talk refreshing. (and waving at Stephen too...I didn't mean to leave you out, m'friend.) Ya'll keep going. I'll ketchup. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob\Stephen, I don’t know about you but I don’t think we’re getting anywhere in this discussion, which I think is a shame. The options are to call it a day and agree to disagree and retire to our respective trenches, which normally happens at some point anyway. Or alternatively we can start again at the beginning and concentrate on trying to get at least some agreement on each part of the jigsaw one piece at a time. If you agree I’ll meet you somewhere in no-mans-land - bring a ball. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Christmas Truce? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Something like that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, I know we have immense common ground too. Is that as fun to discuss though? And I wouldn't mind discussing more with Bob but he keeps spelling his name backwards, and it quite annoys me. Hi, Karen. I appreciate it. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*laughing* ohhhhhhhhh lawsy... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You must be confusing me with my brother, boB, who's always been an annoying sort. Or my dad, Pop, who can never get things remotely straight, or my depressing Prague cousin, Joseph K. Myself, I'm just plain Bob. Best to all, and to all a good night! BK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sheesh! KboB? heh, heh?  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I know when I've been skewered! I must take my place with the vegetables. O woe is poor Mr boB. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*chuckling* Yer alright, BK. (and what, no Jungian stuff? I read a lot of Edinger...so I was hoping ya'll would get around to that too. *pout*) Please continue on, folks. This is so much better than Dr. Phil. And my apologies to John. We can start another thread if you find this annoying, k? Love to all. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I like Edinger, but his notion of self is a bit different than what we've been talking about here. We've been talking about a sense of self that I thinks harks more back to childhood and the self that's rooted in the various experiences of personhood that come out of that. We haven't really touched on Kohut and the "self-psychologists" that have grown out of the psychoanalytic movement since the late 60's and early 70's. Or, really, on any of the "object relations" notions of self that have come from the British psychoanalytic folks. I find these interesting, but I suspect that for most others here, they'd simply bore the paint off a wall. It's more than I think people want to know about. Eddinger, on the other hand, is Jungian, and his notion of self is somewhat different than what we've been talking about. His notion of self (the Jungians talk about Self with a capital S, because they see it as an Archetype) is that it is something that is assembled, if one works hard and is lucky, toward the end of life. It's an achievement, a culmination, a sort of a spiritual and psychological masterwork of integration. I think it's worth talking about, but not monologuing about. So if anybody wants to chuck the notion around, I'd be glad to learn from you and to toss in my two cents. Thoughts? BobK. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
In other words, I don't want to bore people blue and sound like a stuffed shirt while I'm doing it. I need other people to help carry the load. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
quote: Okay, let's just start there. (again) I thought we were just generally discussing the sense of self. But this is good, since this helps clarify where you're coming from, because I really don't recall anyone agreeing upon this. Sure, we skirted the issue, but we still have other dynamics to consider, such as genetics and our environment (the old nature vs. nurture argument) as well as distinct differences of the resulting biology of both (character formation) familial and social indoctrination, and even environmental influences, in addition to inevitable traumas inflicted by introduction/withdrawal of all the above. (I guess we can eventually come to a point where I can protest the proclivity of rampant drugging of children for being children, and questionable diagnoses of these children as "bi-polar" while their young brains are still in developmental stages.) But that's one of my quantum leaps. So, I guess I am asking a question of sorts. If you were to design a pie, how much would you proportion (on the average, of course) to nature (genetics) to nurture (yo Freudian "mamma") to societal environment? Add anything else in there you might feel I neglected. K? okay! Thank you in advance, BK, and btw? BK backwards, is KB, and then you'd be me, and you wouldn't want that, not wouldya?  *chuckling* (Oh we can even argue about when those developmental stages begin and cease--since I have been known to quibble a point.) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Serenity, You don't seem backwards in any way that I can make out; why suggest it? The reason I mention childhood self above is not because that has to be where self is either located or formed, it's simply where the discussion's taken us so far. I think that the self is something that in constant flux throughout life and can take a number of developmental pathways. They've been doing research in Faith Development at the Harvard Divinity School since at least the mid seventies that parallels the work they've been doing in Moral Development at the School of Education there (originally under Lawrence Kohlberg), and though they could do with people to translate their English into readability, it's all on the intellectually interesting side. They try to speak about "development" and "Developmental Stages" without suggesting that one stage is "higher" or "better" than those previous to it, which has always seemed to me to be a piece of magnificent slight of hand to me. They always make it sound true and noble while you're listening to them talk, but the distinctions that they make tend to evaporate when they aren't present to whisper in your ear. They were also, at one point, and may still be, reasonably firm about the notion of Adult Development. I am also a firm believer in this. Surprise, surprise, as they used to have Andy Griffith say (that was Andy Griffith, wasn't it? Maybe it was somebody on The Beverly Hillbillies.) People continue to develop after they hit 21. Coulda fooled me. So no, I don't believe we did agree on the self as being the thing that develops in childhood. I did mention Jung a couple of times early in the thread, but people took the thread in other directions, as was their right. The notion of the childhood development of self simply seemed to develop on its own when the discussion veered into what the "true self" was. Perhaps others remember the history of the discussion differently and would like to give a more accurate accounting? I live to be corrected. The actual question of the sense of the self is an interesting question in itself, by the way, though not the one I think you were speaking about. I think you were talking about what everybody's notions happened to be of what the self might actually be, sort of an intellectual accounting for the background of the self. Interesting, yes? But what I was suggesting, as it crossed my mind just now was slightly different, that is, How do you account for the continuous sense of self (this is me) across a variety of different and sometimes conflicting mental states, opinions, feelings and thoughts and periods of time. The person involved will still say "That was me," at least most of the time, even though they were then a Democrat and are now a-political, were then a catholic and are now a hindu, were then celibate and are now polygamous, were then unhappy and now thrilled, were then a woman and now a man. The internal experience of such a person may still be that of the same "self." In fact, some of us would be surprised if it were not that person's experience. How can a person change virtually everything about themselves and still retain the same "self." Or, conversely, insist that who they are and what they are doing is not "me," is not "myself," despite all pictorial evidence to the contrary? There are all sorts of practices inflicted upon children, Serenity, that I think should not be. I believe these are reflections of practices that are inflicted on other reasonably powerless populations in the society, like the poor, the mad, the physically handicapped, people of color. Sometimes these are completely reasonless and bizarre oppressions, sometimes these are misguided attempts at caretaking. Who knows all the reasons people experiment on other people? A lot of kids get diagnoses they shouldn't get. The flip side of that is that there are lots of kid who haven't gotten diagnoses they should have gotten and which might have proven helpful. Until recently, for example, children could not be given a diagnosis of depression. There were no depressed children in The United States. A lot of children showed symptoms of depression, mind you, but they were not allowed to be treated for depression because there was no such thing as childhood depression. Children, in fact, occasionally killed themselves mysteriously for reasons that were a complete puzzle to their doctors because there was no such thing as childhood depression. And why was there no such thing as childhood depression? Because everybody knew what a happy time childhood was for everybody. You'd have to be some sort of dolt to think there was childhood depression. And none of these doctors were dolts, no sir, because it said so right on their diplomas. It said, "Doctor." It did not say "Dolt." And there were no available doctors who wanted it written on their diplomas. It simply wasn't scientific. Unfortunately there are kids who show symptoms that are very much like bipolar disorder, and you ignore them at their peril. The question about exactly how to treat them has not, to my mind, been resolved, so the question of whether it's wise to treat them or not isn't one I would care to tackle without a much closer look at the research. What does medication do to the developmental pathway? Is it less disruptive to treat of not to treat? How does this affect the mortality rate of this illness? It sounds to me that you have some firm answers on this matter. Perhaps you've considered these questions, and would care to share your thoughts and information about them with me and with others. I wouldn't know much more about such stuff than behavioral management and some basic psychotherapy, depending in the actual clinical presentation. I know I don't want to over stimulate somebody in a manic state; I've seen what happens and I have great compassion for those who remember their experiences in this state and who have seen people they love in such a state. Having known friends in this condition was heartbreaking. As for Pies, I thing that everybody's pie is a bit different. Doesn't that sound strange? But I think it's true. Everybody's going to have particularly heavy proportions of one ingredient and relatively lighter proportions of another. Depending on the mix, the actual flavor of the pie is going to differ, isn't it? If the genetic package is really great, and the childhood not so good, then the actual social matrix may play a relatively large part in the outcome, as may chance encounters with people in the person's life. The actual package of some not so great genetic packages can be a help in some cases, as, say, in Down's syndrome, where along with the various problems with retardation in learning ability and frequent cardiac problems, tell-tale tongue and palm markings, you will also find an almost universally sunny, kind and friendly disposition. Somehow that seems genetically coded in as well, and these folks are almost always pleased with other people and think decently of themselves. I've known geniuses who would be thrilled to have that. We can talk further at another time. A pleasure. Yours, BobK. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Um, I had to scan through this--but I wanted you to know I'd read it, and I will certainly come back to it, weather allowing. And nodding, about everybody's pies being different, but maybe you could help me without something else. Tonight, though. Karen sleeps. Thunderstorms keep pushing through here, and my dog Fred has Post Traumatic Stress from Hurricane Rita. (Not even kidding.) so I sleep tonight, so I'll think better tomorrow, k? There's a lot of stuff here and I'd like to give you the same consideration of time into thought that you have given me. (Besides, Generation Kill is on and I love that show.) Thanks! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. I brought up that bit about the pie, not because I was looking for a "standard" to embrace, I was hoping to get a glimpse of how you see it. I've a proclivity to look for authorities on subjects, yes, and I do question them (sometimes ad nauseum) and sometimes I agree, and sometimes I don't. So fear not Bob, I can be a teeny bit obstinate, and will not take your answers to be any thing more than informed opinion. I've also had second thoughts about discussing the medication of children. It's a sensitive subject and I don't think either of us want to run the risk of being too persuasive or misguiding someone else on such a delicate subject. (I don't mind discussion on the general subject privately, but I don't think I care to toss about broad-stroke opinions on that one.) It's enough to concede that since everybody's pies are different. I thank you for that, because it does get to my original question of how to accurately assess one's "self", which relates to "being" one's self, which relates to a consensus of "identitiy". It's the old quandary of defining insanity without a definition of sanity. Or even just plain old "normal" vs. "peculiar", eh? (It's okay, Bob, that amused me.) But I tell ya what, instead of the pie, I'll start a new thread using a more symbolic means, since this expansion of John's original question is branching out so quickly, it has turned into a baobob.  See ya in another thread, I hope! I'm off to post! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You can fix an average or a mean by statistical methods, but I'm not sure what use that would have for our current discussion. You can even establish units of deviation away from that average and call them standards as well, though the notion of a standard deviation (not quite in the sense that the statisticians mean it) seems unlikely to me, a sort of oxymoron. The word "normal" some Jungian or another tells us comes from the greek word meaning "carpenter's square." I'm more than willing to take him at his word, since I find the derivation charming. While psychology and sociology seem pretty good about talking about the nature of deviance and abnormality, or if not pretty good, then at least they seem to do a lot of it, it would seem to me that the notion of what's decent and alright seems pretty massively understudied, and that we're simply not prepared to grapple with the notions in any welcoming fashion. I for one can be good at saying what's wrong. This is an important skill, and one I value. But I'm also fascinated by my lack of skill in formulating and expressing at least the beginnings of what is or at least may be right. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. I had to read that very slow. I actually smiled at "standard deviation". I think I like that. Survival dictates that at times. (I'm thinking of extreme situations, like, um, say, war, or prison, but of course, there are more subtle variances of differing societal mores.) You kinda lost me after that, though. Or maybe I lost myself. I'm somewhere in the adjustments of subtleties of behaviors when a person is thrust from one environment where taboo behaviors are not only expected, but applauded (or simply retrospectively lauded) and into the "calmer waters" that allow one to practice agreed upon custom as polite behavior. The confusion that a person would feel being subjected to that type of abrupt change just might make them seem peculiar. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.ezgeta.com/ja.html . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
John? You make good medicine. Beautiful... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I agree. That is beautiful. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi John -- reading all this, I still don't "get it." I can't fathom how we can not be ourselves, recluse or not. All the jazz about upbring, moral consideration, impluses etc allmight add up to who one currently "is," but this "isness" is a "so," an inescapable "so," whether one interacts with others or not. One's reflection on an individual "suchness" is irrelevant. Their trip, so to speak. The recluses or interactive human beings reflection on others is irrelevant. Perhaps you are talking about the nature of "pretense," in which one tries not to be who on is. It doesn't seem to work that way. If one pretends, for any reason, to be not whom one is, one IS one who pretends to be not whom one is. Totally authentic. For me, and it's likely my thinking is unacceptable, your question is a non-qustion. The quoted poem in one of your responses, is charming, but IMO, silly as thought. There is an old question, "who is watching?" which is a grand way to drive yourself nuts. No one is watching. There is no you outside of you. There is a ton of stuff which takes place outside of us,that we are not the center of, or even tangentially involved in. We can't sweat it unless we choose to, and then the sweating IS you. All our (said non judgementally) deceit, lies, compromises etc are who we are. Just as are all of loving acts, charitability, self-restraint and so on. If one chooses to act on impluse without regard for consequences, or cannot help but do so, that is who one is. If one is restrained from acting on impulse without regard for consequences, that is who one is. It doesn't matter how one gets to where one is. We're here right now exactly as we are -- and it can transform in an instant, leaving us exactly there right then. And nobody is keeping score. Best, Jim Aitken |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, The manner and severity in which our own conscience reacts, or the way we can successfully gag it and go on living free (but in a kind of unperturbed malaise) ... is a clue that someone is watching. Who you are, still matters beyond your own skin. But I'll bet you believe that already. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You have just been confronted by a religious position that is utterly different from your own. Denial is a perfectly reasonable first response but will probably not hold up well over the long term as road to an authentic and open dialogue, should either of you want such a thing. Jim is actually telling you exactly what he means to be saying, near as I can tell, and is reporting his experience, near as I can tell, with an honesty as utterly sincere as your own. You won't often see that. It looks as if Jim doesn't believe somebody is watching. If Jim believes nothing he does matters outside his own skin, you'd have to show me where he said so. I don't see it in his text. I suspect you expected to find it there. Sincerely yours, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I think that approach is what often makes many problems in how people treat people. People more and more become treated like deeds, abstract things, or objects, instead of like actual people. Even a man that commits the worst crime doesn't deserve to be treated as if he is the crime. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Well I can always rest assured that Bob is watching me. I appreciate your concern to see that Jim and I have authentic dialogue ... but I think we really do. I consider Jim a friend, and we have some talk now and again even outside of the forum. And because of that genuine respect we have, I think that challenges can be sanguinely received either way. My statement was only an expression of what I consider to be the logical outcome of a suggested direction ... not at all an accusation or anything along those lines. Actually I know that Jim doesn't think or practice such an absurdity. I know how good he is to his wife and others. I only wanted to point out that his heart doesn't necessarily jive with certain philosophies that are really and rationally more at home with a kind of solipsism (or even nihilism). Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Woody Allen once reported that he flunked a college metaphysics exam for cheating by looking into the soul of the guy sitting next to him in class. It's not clear to me he ever really broke the habit, and I wonder sometimes if his sense of humor was onto something when it suggested to him that doing so might actually be cheating. I haven't entirely decided. Though I'd be interested in knowing if Jim thinks your evaluation of his heart in respect to this particular case is the same as his own. If you're out there, Jim? As for the comment dropping in the forrest, I am certain that it exists even if I don't hear it, which is why I get so paranoid. "Rest assured Bob is watching me. . . ?" Tell me, Stephanos, have you been saying things about me while you thought I wasn't listening? I knew it all along! One can love deeply, feel compassion and put others first without being a Christian or even necessarily a Deist, and it is done all the time. That it is done all the time doesn't mean that Christianity or your particular form of it are any less wonderful than you believe them to be. Not precisely in line because the theology and the point are somewhat different, as I was writing this I was reminded of one of the most wonderful religious poems I believe I've ever read, a sonnet of all things, written by the poet James Wright called Saint Judas. It may even be in the book of the same name. I read it about 40 years ago and I still find it very much an emotional part of me. You could probably find it somewhere on the web, and it would be more than worth the search. Best to you from he who doesn't see his nose in front of his face, Bob |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But of course. We are (by creation) all made in the image of God. Love is not limited to Christians. I've never suggested that it was. And Bob, I don't mind your watchfulness. You always want equity and respect in the relations of everyone. And I respect you for that. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ess: RE: “Even a man that commits the worst crime doesn't deserve to be treated as if he is the crime.” There is a bit to gnaw on here, starting with “deserve,” a wonderfully loaded word implying a judgmental stance. Of course we make judgments all the time, and some of them even count. The notion of “judge not that you be not judged” is one of those confounding adages that work poorly on metaphysical and pragmatic levels, yet hang around forever. To be non-judgmental involves making a choice, a “judgment” to not judge. To make a judgment, an adjudication, requires impartiality, a quality of being non-judgmental. Lets posit for argument’s sake that murder is the worst crime. Call it a moral absolute. A murderer is not a murderer until he/she murders. At that point, how can one draw a distinction between the murderer and the act of murder. Or turn it on it’s head and suggest that laying down one’s life for one’s brother is the most charitable of acts. What is the distinction between the individual and the act? It’s possible that indifference is the worst of crimes, and the harshest of treatments the most charitable of acts. .RE: “I think that approach is what often makes many problems in how people treat people. People more and more become treated like deeds, abstract things, or objects, instead of like actual people.” Deeds are not abstract things, and objects are neither deeds nor abstractions. Which doesn’t mean these can’t be seen as actual to people. You are what you do, you are what you think about it, and you are what you are. “Stephen, RE: “We are (by creation) all made in the image of God.” Yikes! You mean I’ve looked like Whoopi Goldberg all along and haven’t noticed? Slightly more seriously, we seem to diverge in our inquiries along the line of “Who Creates,” manifested in a deity, and “What Creates,” which has no manifestation. They are not two ways of looking at the same thing. The difference is not subtle. Bob K: One way to determine if you have a nose even if you can’t see it is to walk into a thick plate glass door and break it, your nose, that is, as I recently did at our local pizzeria. Anecdote: At a friend’s wedding, I was introduced to the Abbess of the LA Zen Center. We got to chatting, and I mentioned that I used to sit Zazen at retreats, but after breaking my ankles and having them screwed back together, I couldn’t get past the pain. Her response: “So sit in a chair.” Another one of those nose opening moments! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: "A murderer", is literally not a murderer at all. He is literally only a human. "Murderer" (or any other action-based name) is just a confusion of the human and the action, treating them as if they are bound in one being, while they are not. However, I am not totally against using such a "confusion". It is so ingrained in languages, that it is almost impossible to avoid. But I think it ought to be used with much discretion. We should use it because it is sometimes important to refer to a man according to his actions/behavior, not because we should no longer make a distinction between those things. The distinction between the individual and the act is just that: the distinction that the individual is the individual and that the act is the act, and that they are not one and the same. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, I have heard you assert this before. I believe this is a point of view; not anything like an established fact but a respectable position which I myself move into and out of without much clear understanding of why I would actually do so. I'm reasonably sure I could defend either side of this proposition, and I also believe that your mind is flexible and subtle enough to do so as well, in all likelihood, more capably than mine. Am I misreading things here? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Since "murderer" does not mean "murder" but "one who murders", it is a perfectly acceptable definition. It is still the human being who conceived and committed the act itself (both internally and externally- 'read "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor D. for a really good psychological sketch of the phenomenon') Does that mean he should ever be identified with that? Not necessarily. I believe in redemption and forgiveness, though it is a rare find. Do I believe we are to treat others according to deeds only? Not exactly. For moral / religious reasons I think "Hate the Sin, Love the sinner" is a pretty good principle, even if problematic for us. A person is made in the likeness of God, no matter how far down in degredation he or she goes. But sadly, sometimes perpetual sins (and labels associated with them) are never gotten rid of. If you don't want to say "We are what we do", you at least have to admit "Who we are determines what we do". I'm not sure there's a difference, other than semantical. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob No, I can't defend both sides, for I find it very wrong to treat people and their actions as one and the same. It results in treating people on the same level as we treat their actions instead of treating them as equal human beings (as much as possible), despite their actions. Stephanos, quote: Saying "one who murders" is little different from saying "This person = murdering". It is a semi-metaphor, in that, even though it directly refers to a human, it indirectly refers to the act of murder through referring to the person. Therefore, no, the "murder" part is not literally part of what the person is. The part of being a human though is. As I mentioned earlier, I am not totally against using such names, but against using them without discretion. I also generally don't find them more helpful most of the time. Most of the time they may be less helpful. For example, calling a woman "prostitute" over and over again, is just another way of treating a woman like a prostitute, instead of like a woman that is and deserves better. No different with "theif" "rapist" "murderer", "criminal" "sinner", etc. quote: I think I agree. But what we do as general and common is not whence the problems come. We all do the same thing: live the human life, but it is how we do it that brings about better or worse, good and evil. Being human determines a common "fire" so to speak, but it doesn't determine specifically how we use that fire. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-21-2008 03:05 PM).] |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
"If you don't want to say "We are what we do", you at least have to admit "Who we are determines what we do"." Now this is what I want to say! We are the sum of all our actions, impulses, desires, thoughts and vices. ALL of them. And each one changes us slightly for better or worse. To use the murderer example, I must be at a certain moral level to be capable of hot blooded murder, a lower one for cold blooded murder. After the act however I am worse than I was. Also in the contemplation of murder (or any other evil act) automaticaly brings me closer to the level of doing it. The same is true of good and neutral acts. In fact that is why "knowing oneself" is so impossible, because the very act of looking at yourself changes you. In reality we choose who we are, through tiny little acts, thoughts and encouraged (or discouraged) emotion everyday. We do not realize we are doing so because that would require a self awareness which would color everything about us. A self awareness which does at times exist but cannot exist at all times. Be who you are |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Being able to bring yourself to do so—defending the other side of this particular discussion—and having the knowledge are different things. You have a moral commitment to keeping the person distinct from the deed which I must admire in you. Part of my own difficulty is that I have actually met people who test my actual capacity to make that distinction in practice. I have met people who have wanted to kill me and who have tried to do so. These folks I've been able to deal with fairly well, generally being able to understand their side of the situation. I don't believe everybody has to love me or that I'm always right. What I have difficulty dealing with is when some poor soul tries to kill somebody else, or does kill somebody else. It arouses all my vengeful fury, and I am afraid that I attach it very often to the person who committed the crime. Intellectually I can see what the Buddhists can call the "hell realm" they live in, but my compassion is horribly limited for them. They can feel this in me, very often, and they try to play with me a bit on those occasions when I've had occasions to talk with them, since the notion of guilt is something they like to use to toy with people who have any particular sense of right and wrong. "Did I learn that I'd done anything wrong during my time in prison," one guy asked me? "Uh Huh," I replied. Silence would have been a better response, I think now. "Yeah," he said; "yeah, I learned something. I learned not to get caught." And this was his little gift to me. First, something that was probably carrying a bit of the truth to it. Second, something mean-spirited and cruel, and third, and probably most important in terms of the psychodynamics of the situation, he was giving me a piece of his murderous rage to hold onto for him. That's what the exchange left me feeling, you see, murderous rage that this guy was so unconcerned about the life of somebody else. And that was a lie on his part. He didn't kill the person in question for no reason, he killed that person because of the feeling he was making me feel at that moment, that huge and horrible and bitter rage, out of all proportion to anything that had actually been said. I could actually feel my desire to kill him at that point. The psychological mechanism involved is called Projective Identification, and it is very primitive and very powerful, and very personal. It's of these experiences that I think when I try to separate out the person and the behavior. I think the person I was working with here was trying to make that distinction within himself, but he certainly hadn't yet done so with any success. Heaven knows he was making an effort, and over the long run I do believe that people will try to move toward love and health most of the time. I don't know what the result of this guy's treatment was because I wasn't there to see it through, but I have to tell you, I wouldn't feel easy about seeing him on the street today. I'm trying here to connect with you as a person about this, and I'm talking about personal experience. I've kept the other guy disguised enough to be unrecognizable but to present some of the basic issues. I can't and won't be more forthcoming about the guy, if he is a guy, in any way that might compromise his privacy. I want this to be more direct and less intellectual, at least on my part, than our last discussion on this stuff, where I felt I wasn't being forthcoming enough to keep the discussion fluid. Sincerely yours, Bob K |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
There’s a reason we attach the labels of past actions to people - it’s so we can recognise them when we need to deal with them and communicate that recognition to other people. Take away the label and Bob the builder is just plain Bob and that could be a problem when you factor in Bob the Psychotherapist and Bob the axe murderer. One of them is worth employing to sort out your leaky attic but the other two I wouldn’t recommend, though I have heard that Bob the Psychotherapist is a dab hand at DIY if you get stuck. Bob the builder builds things, Bob the axe murderer kills things, Bob the psychotherapist tries to work out why. Sometimes the name isn’t important, it’s what they do that matters and if people have a problem with the labels we use for them perhaps they've choose the wrong vocation and have only themselves to blame. BTW the characters in my comment are totally fictional, and are in no way based on real individuals living or deceased or cartoon - including Bob the builder. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Bob the builder builds things, Bob the axe murderer kills things, Bob the psychotherapist tries to work out why." Is each Bob a consequence of choices freely made? Would any of the Bobs be as he is if he was born with fifty million in a trust account? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes, but within limits dictated by circumstance. quote: They could be if that’s what they choose to be, having fifty-million is a circumstance that increases the possible choices but it doesn’t remove those you already have. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Grinch, How many here, if they had fifty million, would be what they are now? Fifty million allows for being anything, (short of murderer), including nothing to the world with pleasure. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No idea - I suppose it would be precisely the same number that chose to be what they are now. Is this going somewhere? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Don't know, but whoever this Bob guy is, he'd better stay out of any dark Alley. He sound mean and nasty. Hope he gets what he deserves. The sooner the better. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I beleve most of us are compelled to choose within a very limited range of choices. Given the absolute freedom of great wealth or an imminently terminal disease I doubt most of us would be what we are defined as now. I would certainly not spend my one life in any way as an accountant. . |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
What we are is not determined by our range of choices but what we would (or do do) with those choices. Thus yes what you would do with unlimited choices is different than what you do with your limited ones. But that has no hold on who you are. Who you are is about what you would do and how hard/easy it would be to do that. Be who you are |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Great So the open expression of the real me is buried by degrees of degrees of choice I had in that real world which couldn't care less. . |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
Exactly. And there's a reason it couldn't care less - it would go crazy trying. Be who you are |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
Also open expression is a myth. We use all kinds of shorthand which is best summed up by a quote from (ironicaly enough) "Batman Begins" "It's not what you are on the inside but what you do that defines you." But the inside is still who you are. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I believe true being of am is beyond expression in any language including that of silence and yet is immediately comprehensible, (and remembered after), in experience . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And yet somehow I failed to understand what you were saying. With all the difficulties you mention, I would still be pleased if you'd try to make yourself clear enough for me to follow. Bob K. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I like that, Huan, and it makes sense to me. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi John -- re your most recent post above: I agree with you completely about language being a barrier between the nature of “am,” existential notions of “am-ness”, and the experience of “am-as-state-of-being.” One of the simpler, but intellectually incomprehensible language takes towards an expression is “I am that I am.” The key word seems to be “that,” as opposed to a an easier “what.” Changes the whole frame of reference and throws it into meta-metaphysics. I don’t think this can be understood on a rational level, but agree with you again that it can be experienced. Every time we have a shift in perception, a moment of epiphany, transformation, or experience an experience, however one wants to couch it , we are open, to a realm of “am-ness.” It has nothing to do with what we think about it, and probably even less to do with what can be said about, those these might be the same thing. In “I am that I am,” someone was presumably quoting the Judeo-Christian God. I posit that the person quoting had had a key experience, a flash of insight that was uber-rational. Most Biblical concordances offer grand glosses on the “meaning” of this statement. The problem is a gloss or explication has to be couched in words, which, as we seem to agree, doesn’t cut it. The transformative experience as gateway to, or absolute state of “am” is always available, and happens all the time, perhaps particularly when “time” is not a factor, in another poor, wordy expression. It doesn’t need to be forced, and I don’t think it can be. Two difficulties come up: Most people don’t simply experience their experiences. We tend to get too busy thinking about it. Second, “experience” or being in the “experiential state” is transitory. Downright fleeting, in fact. It seems to be too intense to sustain, though not impossible to remember. If we were able to sustain such a state, would we be enlightened beings? Or are the fleeting experiences, moments of enlightenment, about the best we can hope for? I don’t know. Which brings me to a recent Bob post: Hi Bob: Re: “Intellectually I can see what the Buddhists can call the "hell realm" they live in, but my compassion is horribly limited for them. They can feel this in me, very often, and they try to play with me a bit on those occasions when I've had occasions to talk with them, since the notion of guilt is something they like to use to toy with people who have any particular sense of right and wrong.” The problem here is the characterization of Buddhists or Buddhism as some kind of monolithic entity, when in fact, they and it are almost as diverse in thought and practice a the Hindu, of which they were a subset to begin with. It is impossible to reconcile your view with a basic Buddhist tenet of compassion for all living things (even within this life of hell as some strains view it.) There are Buddhist line of thought embracing a vast demonic hierarchy, levels of hellishness, which, to them, is not speculative, but as “real” as anything in Revelations. These strains have long been a part of Tibetan and Bhutanese culture at least. But Buddhism did not begin there, just a Christianity didn’t start in Rome. The Buddha, of course, was born in India. He wrote nothing down, and everything attributed to his thought was/is subject to different interpretations. Zen, or Chan Buddhism, which started in China and migrated to Japan, has much, I think, in common with the thought of the lineage of Milarepa, its possible source, and does not reflect conservative Buddhist thought. Maybe they can be thought of as similar to the Universalist/Unitarians of their time. One of the tenets of Zen is to be attuned to experience the now. This sect is non-judgmental, but from a position of compassion. Do “Buddhist’s” like to mess with “non-Buddhist” minds? Well, some of the American converts I’ve met seem to, but then, there are smart alecks everywhere. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-28-2008 07:30 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I don't know why, but Earl's "Batman Begins" quote reminded me of another quote from a romance film, "Maid in Manhattan." "What we do does not define who we are. What defines us is how well we rise after falling." personally, it's amazing how many of us base our principals on some really good sounding lines, scripted by someone faceless for that of another, more attractive for an audience. lol. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I agree, rwood. A pleasure to hear somebody who's suspicious of a fast answer in a mouth with really really white teeth. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I was in a hurry, and made the common mistake of a word. But I left it because it also applies, in *principle.* I think you captured the thought, Bob. Thanks. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
