What Constitutes the Self?

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Faun147

What makes us who we are? If we strip away everything but what this thing is, what is left?

No one can tall you this.
Do the work; strip away all that you find 'false' and see for yourself what is left (if anything).
When all the 'lies' are stripped, what, if anything, is left?
Then you can tell us what you find, or don't.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by nameless

No one can tall you this.
Do the work; strip away all that you find 'false' and see for yourself what is left (if anything).
When all the 'lies' are stripped, what, if anything, is left?
Then you can tell us what you find, or don't.

nameless,


Actually I have had that experience though not of a really long duration, at one point I had lost all memory of who I was, even family members were complete strangers. With this also, what was absent was any negative feelings about myself in the world. I was pretty banged up and sore but it felt really good to be alive just as experience, then I remembered one small detail and my old life and identity came flooding back. It really made me queston the nature of identity, not a big topic with my young peers at the time. So in the absence of all those complexities reguarding your relations with the world, your failures and sucesses and thus the totality of your self evaluation is gone and all there is, is life and experience, and it feels bloody good. There really would be nothing there in the absence of object, for expience is what you are, your personal experience your identity.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Faun147

What makes us who we are? If we strip away everything but what this thing is, what is left?

Tabula rasa. Well, not completely rasa; more a nearly-blank slated being which has subtle propensities that'll only be manifest once that being begins to experience over time.

What we'd be stripping away would *be* the self - a thing builds itself over time through its experiences, perceptions, views, emotional overtones and much more. Like layers to an onion.

Or one could take another direction and answer the question with a "... pretty much nothing".

[nameless]

From 'this' Perspective, 'self' is generally 'two'.
For most, 'self' is an egoic image. A 'me' versus (contextually) the universe in terms of 'definition'; I am this, not that, this not that... That is one Perspective of a 'self'. It is not invalid, it is not error. This Perspective is part of the universes perceived.
I have found that I, we, are, beyond egoic images, ultimately, Conscious Perspectives (Souls); 'limited' observers of the Unlimited. This is the complete 'set', within which the egoPerspective (subset) 'exists'.

Originally Posted by boagie

Actually I have had that experience though not of a really long duration, at one point I had lost all memory of who I was, even family members were complete strangers. With this also, what was absent was any negative feelings about myself in the world. I was pretty banged up and sore but it felt really good to be alive just as experience,

It sounds to me like you might have had an 'ego death' experience. There was no 'personal' as there was no distinctive 'person'. Oneness with the universe of the moment has no room for 'falsely Perspectival', distinctions; "I am that I am".

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Khethil

What we'd be stripping away would *be* the self - a thing builds itself over time through its experiences, perceptions, views, emotional overtones and much more. Like layers to an onion.

What you describe is the growth of the egoic image of a 'self'.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by nameless

What you describe is the growth of the egoic image of a 'self'.

No. Although those elements often do tend to include ego-based conceptualizations - one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

Indeed, the experience of life itself (read: developing awareness) may lead one to a place where discovery (and subsequent elimination) of the destructive ego could take place.

Interesting thought though.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Indeed, the experience of life itself (read: developing awareness) may lead one to a place where discovery (and subsequent elimination) of the destructive ego could take place.

If "self" is some type of inherent, absolute, unchanging essence of an individual, then merely taking a path in life that allows you to consciously discover more of what this essence is (if possible) would not ultimately affect the existence, state, or meaning of this self.

This is a very interesting, yet deep topic, and with further consideration we can hopefully understand more. First though, there needs to be an agreement on the definition of "self"...it doesn't appear that everyone here agrees on the definition.

[boagie]

Pangloss,

I often like to quote the Upanishads which state that, "The self in one is the self in all." The self is life itself, it is that essence which throws up life forms in which to dwell, as such it is anonymous, yet the same in all creatures. It is the substance, the life form the flame.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by boagie

Pangloss,
I often like to quote the Upanishads which state that, "The self in one is the self in all." The self is life itself, it is that essence which throws up life forms in which to dwell, as such it is anonymous, yet the same in all creatures. It is the substance, the life form the flame.

Yes, the "universal mind", eternal flame, God, what have you. The problem is getting to the point where we have a dialogue like, "What is the Self?"...'life'. "What is life?"...'spirit'. "What is the spirit?"... this is the great question that people have asked since the dawn of man. I don't know if we're really any closer to the answer now than we were then. Science has names and configurations for subatomic particles, atoms/elements, chemicals, and body parts that make up the animal. But they still don't know how those first cells came about.

Are "self" and "life" one in the same? Or is "life" a part of "self", or vice versa? A plant is alive, but do we believe it to contain a "self" like a human? Many of the eastern philosophies would concur that there is "self" in all "life", and that in fact they are the same substance. Others argue that only man has a "self" or "spirit", though it is part of the group of "life".

These are some of the big questions, maybe unknowable, except perhaps at (or beyond?) the event of physical death, when the "self" will either be entirely stolen away, or entirely revealed...depending upon which idea of the concept turns out to be correct!

[boagie]

Pangloss,

Perhaps the self is not even local in the sense that whatever that essence is, it is an ability to experience and nothing more without its object/physcial world. Without object it would remain useless potential, it anticipates its object like the lock presumes its key. The self I think is not bounded by our skins, but includes the physcial world.