“We need not imagine self as a homunculus at the other end of the mechanism that is this orientated consciousness. Self is not the homunculus but the mechanism, and the mechanism is real.”
This is an ingenious insight, i.e. “clever, original, and inventive.” It may well be the foundation of a corrective understanding of “self.” I think we probably need to add the capacity of memory to account for a sense of a persistent, unified self.
In any event, it is, I think the ingenuity of this argument that enables its success. Yet the Auraist, in acknowledging your success, also partly diminishes it by adding,
“This understanding of self, it must be said, is not how that term is commonly understood. So the challenge for Auraist readers now becomes: Do you know a valid (non-circular) justification for the existence of the self, as that term is commonly understood?”
What if the common understanding is a misunderstanding? Your argument serves not just as an argument but also as a reorienting insight into the nature of the self. It even accommodates the transcendent perception that the self (as a singular “it,” or absolutely discrete identity) is illusory.
To respond to your argument by partly disclaiming it as offering a “nonstandard” understanding and then seeking valid arguments for the “standard” understanding serves what purpose? To seek valid and but potentially misguided and unsound arguments?
Better, I think, would have ben to seek such arguments that were now required to engage your augment, so that the discussion has some bearing beyond the gamesmanship of winning a lifetime subscription. (Congratulations!)
I would have said all this at the Auraist’s stack, but, “alas,” comments were disabled.
That's very kind. I suspect there may have been some disagreement behind the scenes. (I believe Auraist is multiple people.) And you're right, I'm not sure that in either essay I outline the role of memory.
Ah, I'd missed that follow up. If not outline, you do touch on memory:
"Self is an identity built through the process of maturity, a collection of defining memories and adopted principles that give us a sense of history and belonging and guide our present choices and worldview."
I wouldn't concern myself with monotheistic religions' notions of self, which do complicate the conception by relating it to an individual "soul" that even persists beyond life in some manner. That's an extraneous element not inherent to the idea of self. The reason for noting Eastern traditions is the complementariness with them of your idea.
Unfortunately my Buddhist and Stoic worldviews will not allow me to acknowledge the self. I spend all the time I can each day, denying that my lack of ability to perceive objectively or that I understand the thoughts and struggles of other living beings.
Your essential claim is:
“We need not imagine self as a homunculus at the other end of the mechanism that is this orientated consciousness. Self is not the homunculus but the mechanism, and the mechanism is real.”
This is an ingenious insight, i.e. “clever, original, and inventive.” It may well be the foundation of a corrective understanding of “self.” I think we probably need to add the capacity of memory to account for a sense of a persistent, unified self.
In any event, it is, I think the ingenuity of this argument that enables its success. Yet the Auraist, in acknowledging your success, also partly diminishes it by adding,
“This understanding of self, it must be said, is not how that term is commonly understood. So the challenge for Auraist readers now becomes: Do you know a valid (non-circular) justification for the existence of the self, as that term is commonly understood?”
What if the common understanding is a misunderstanding? Your argument serves not just as an argument but also as a reorienting insight into the nature of the self. It even accommodates the transcendent perception that the self (as a singular “it,” or absolutely discrete identity) is illusory.
To respond to your argument by partly disclaiming it as offering a “nonstandard” understanding and then seeking valid arguments for the “standard” understanding serves what purpose? To seek valid and but potentially misguided and unsound arguments?
Better, I think, would have ben to seek such arguments that were now required to engage your augment, so that the discussion has some bearing beyond the gamesmanship of winning a lifetime subscription. (Congratulations!)
I would have said all this at the Auraist’s stack, but, “alas,” comments were disabled.
This was my follow up. https://open.substack.com/pub/ourdeeperstories/p/narcissism-eastern-traditions-and
That's very kind. I suspect there may have been some disagreement behind the scenes. (I believe Auraist is multiple people.) And you're right, I'm not sure that in either essay I outline the role of memory.
Ah, I'd missed that follow up. If not outline, you do touch on memory:
"Self is an identity built through the process of maturity, a collection of defining memories and adopted principles that give us a sense of history and belonging and guide our present choices and worldview."
I wouldn't concern myself with monotheistic religions' notions of self, which do complicate the conception by relating it to an individual "soul" that even persists beyond life in some manner. That's an extraneous element not inherent to the idea of self. The reason for noting Eastern traditions is the complementariness with them of your idea.
Anyway, good job!
Unfortunately my Buddhist and Stoic worldviews will not allow me to acknowledge the self. I spend all the time I can each day, denying that my lack of ability to perceive objectively or that I understand the thoughts and struggles of other living beings.
I think you’re right.
Yes, that was deliberate…
Seriously, good argument.
Thank you!
I see nothing wrong with your argument.