The most fundamental distinction in life is the separation of self from other. It is the basis of all Science and all Techology; The underpinning of engineering and mathematics. It is the bedrock of Aristotelian logic--the A and the Not A; The armature of thought.
For these reasons, it is the most examined subject in philosophy. It confronts the human intellect. Other ideas are mere chimera. It is not (dear X) so simple as walking into a door. WE all do that, and it does not constitute proof of oneness (just pinching you back!).
Cogito, ergo sum, or as Rand preferred...I am, therefore I think. But, who am I? What is the beginning of me? What is the end? What is the reach of my field?
Am I my eyes? No.. You can take my left eye, then my right. You can take my ears; You can cauterize all my nerve endings; Remove my tongue, and the molecular catch basins in my nostrils. Take my brain and float it in an electolytic solution; Move an oxygenated food supply through my neurons. Still you have not gotten to the foundation of who I am. Still, in that tiny floating blob there is much of the Universe--in the form of ideas.
Would love to hear opinions on this article:
easyweb.easynet.co.uk
Some will say: Yes, I am my body. This, too, is me. Fine. Are you the germs and parasites inside and out? Or only the ones essential for your continued existence. Are you the air in your lungs? When does the air become you? As it enters the nose? But why should that be? It was yours--was you--as soon as it crept beneath your study door and entered the stream destined to become a part of your body and brain. Is that water in your hand you? Must it reach your lips first? Your hand? Or is it only necessary to be in your vision...or in your thought?
Schopenhauer believed in a Universal Will that each of us commandeered, as we pursued our illusions of separateness. Then there is the Naturalistic or Sinozistic view--that we are parts of the Universal Foce or God, and that we are both One and separate--pursuing our own nature, as each separate tide seeks the shore. The great Bertrand Russell described him (Spinoza)as the " noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers."
Speaking of Russell. His essay on vagueness is appropriate (I think) to some of my questions of your seven principles (questions, by the way, that are in no sense a disagreement, as I noted expressed in one of your posts; But, rather, as an invitation to discuss).
cruzio.com
Berkeley, in "Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous" shows that the existence of matter only as idea is a cogent one. Even Russell acknowledges that there is nothing absurd in the proposal. Nothing is perhaps as simple as it thinks.
The Solipsists believed that all was one mind (This is different than Berkeley). Here is an interesting attempt to discredit the proposition:
cfh.ufsc.br
Another way of looking at the me/not me phenomena is derived from field theory.
Field theory brings together the concept of distinct and isolated parts into the concept of a whole in which every part is influenced by anything occurring anywhere in the field. There is no distance or time, but only immediacy. What exists is a function of the observer, and when and how she observes. Each person IS a field and is part of a larger field..and the wholeness exists regardless of the limitations of the individual vision. In the realm of psychology, this is a part of gestalt theory.
Do I Believe anything I've set down here with a capital B? No. My point is that self and other is the oldest question of humankind. It is anything but simplistic; And it has compelled the attention of thoughtful people since man first transformed a rabbit's leg into abs of steel. It is the fundamental question behind all isms and logys. And it is the reason why I playfully questioned whether your principles might result in a morality that required the vigilance of others. Let me excerpt some brief gestalt comments to illustrate some of the moral concerns around your principles. This, again, is not disagreement. It is an invitation to discuss.
Disturbances of the Contact Boundary
When the boundary between self and other becomes unclear, lost or impermeable, this results in a disturbance of the distinction between self and other, a disturbance of both contact and awareness (see Perls, 1973; Polster and Polster, 1973). In good boundary functioning, people alternate between connecting and separating, between being in contact with the current environment and withdrawal of attention from the environment. The contact boundary is lost in polar opposite ways in confluence and isolation. In confluence (fusion), the separation and distinction between self and other becomes so unclear that the boundary is lost. In isolation, the boundary becomes so impermeable that connectedness is lost, i.e., the importance of others for the self is lost from awareness.
Retroflection is a split within the self, a resisting of aspects of the self by the self. This substitutes self for environment, as in doing to self what one wants to do to someone else or doing for self what one wants someone else to do for self. This mechanism leads to isolation. The illusion of self-sufficiency is one example of retroflection as it substitutes self for environment. Although one can do one's own breathing and chewing, the air and food must come from the environment.
Introspection is a form of retroflection that can be pathological or healthy. For example, resisting the impulse to express anger may serve to cope with a dangerous environment. In such a situation, biting one's lip may be more functional than saying something biting.
Through introjection, foreign material is absorbed without discriminating or assimilating. Swallowing whole creates an "as if" personality and rigid character. Introjected values and behavior are imposed on self. As in all contact boundary disturbances, swallowing whole can be healthy or pathological, depending on the circumstances and degree of awareness. For example, students taking a lecture course may, with full awareness that they are doing so, copy, memorize and regurgitate material without full "digestion."
Projection is a confusion of self and other that results from attributing to the outside something that is truly self. An example of healthy projection is art. Pathological projection results from not being aware of and accepting responsibility for that which is projected.
Deflection is the avoidance of contact or of awareness by turning aside, as when one is polite instead of direct. Deflection can be accomplished by not expressing directly or by not receiving. In the latter case, the person usually feels "untouched"; in the former case, the person is often ineffective and baffled about not getting what is wanted. Deflection can be useful where, with awareness, it meets the needs of the situation (e.g., where the situation needs cooling down). Other examples of deflection include not looking at a person, verbosity, vagueness, understating and talking about rather than to (Polster and Polster, 1973, pp. 89-92). |
