What Constitutes the Self?

[Faun147]

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

[boagie]

Life! The self in one is the self in all. Upanishades

[Holiday20310401]

The self is recognition of subjective perception. I think that the self is defined through recognition of differences from the outside as a product of one's perception, and mind.

I believe the self is controlled through actual constituents of the organism, like the workings of the brain and other systems. However, to say that the reality of the self if affected purely from the actual workings of the entity's material means that the self must change as the material changes.

Does this mean that the self is never the same in comparison to relative instances? No, the self only evolves, it doesn't change. Although it is interesting to look at it this way. Have you ever looked at a piece of writing that you wrote from many years ago, and questioned how the could I have written that, it's awful. Then it becomes a question of what is the difference between the self back then and a different person who would be more adequate to gauge that piece of writing now, or back then?

The past allows for relative perception to be possible, the mind can't grasp all things at once and relate them in a single instance.

Perhaps the consciousness is a product of the self recognizing relative instances, like some sort of perception of time's causal construct. I mean for something that isn't conscious, their knowledge of what will happen to their entity is governed by forces depicting its actuality, so in a sense it has an absolute path because the self can't control its own causality.

The self is just a way to deviate or delineate from the absolute, not that any material is absolute of course. The self relies on the mind and consciousness. Maybe somebody else could counter some of my assumptions though.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Faun147

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

Faun,

One needs to distinguish between what is the self and what is personal identity, personal identity is formed and defined by context, the self is immutable and unviveral. The self, is the essence of life, personal identity is how it becomes clothed in context.

[Didymos Thomas]

This is a question answered in many different ways by many different traditions of thought.

Boagie has already mentioned the Upanishads - those texts contain some of the more famous and eloquent answers to this question.

Psychology has also attempted to answer this question. The way the question is phrased always interests me:
" What makes us who we are? If we strip away everything but what this thing is, what is left?"

What are we stripping away if not a part of this 'thing'?
Is the self a 'thing' at all?

The first question, 'What makes us who we are?' is a little different than 'what is our essential nature?'. What makes us who we are is our memory, as Locke said. But memory doesn't seem to fit the bill as 'essential nature' or anything like that - memory changes, we lose memory, our conception of a particular memory changes over time... some memory can be entirely fabricated.

This is a valuable topic to explore. Thanks, Faun147.

[GoshisDead]

One needs to distinguish between what is the self and what is personal identity, personal identity is formed and defined by context, the self is immutable and unviveral. The self, is the essence of life, personal identity is how it becomes clothed in context.

In this case I agree with the first part, however the second part I would have to say is more; the self is a particular mixture of DNA that interacts with its environment given the unique proclivities of that DNA to influence bahavior and perception, the interaction of such creates the personal Identity.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

In this case I agree with the first part, however the second part I would have to say is more; the self is a particular mixture of DNA that interacts with its environment given the unique proclivities of that DNA to influence bahavior and perception, the interaction of such creates the personal Identity.

GoshiDead,

I do not think that because a person is born with particular proclivities, those being in general not dissimilar to the norm but perhaps in degree. Certain qualites/ porclivities are probably present as well, which the environment/context does not evoke. The fact is one is born into this world without identity and only through ones life journey does one aquire identity from lifes relation to its context. Context defines you might say, it is true that each life has its own constitution, that given, it can drastically influence the relation of life to context. Sometimes the constitution is weak, as in a less then a fully viable seed, or it could be a viable seed which finds itself in poor soil or poor context. The self is life and as such it is anonymous, if it is poor in constitution or no, it is the subject in need of object, and that object is the given context of its life, and thus the self finds personal identity in which to clothe itself, and to forget, its anonymous nature.

"The self in one, is the self in all." Upanishades

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

The fact is one is born into this world without identity and only through ones life journey does one aquire identity from lifes relation to its context.

... interesting ... Andy Clark has a concept of "external scaffolding" that extends the brain with capabilities for thought that are not inherent to it (pencil and paper, long division, computers, etc.) ... what you are saying seems to be an adaptation of this concept - not only is the mind brain + body + world, but so is the self! ... I already knew that I lose my (professional) mind whenever I leave my office (with its easy access to numerous volumes I routinely rely on) - but does your observation mean that when I visit the home office that the "self" that gets presented there is not the "self" I am when enveloped in my cocoon-of-the-written-word? ... that is, you can't even strip away part of my world without changing who I am?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... interesting ... Andy Clark has a concept of "external scaffolding" that extends the brain with capabilities for thought that are not inherent to it (pencil and paper, long division, computers, etc.) ... what you are saying seems to be an adaptation of this concept - not only is the mind brain + body + world, but so is the self! ... I already knew that I lose my (professional) mind whenever I leave my office (with its easy access to numerous volumes I routinely rely on) - but does your observation mean that when I visit the home office that the "self" that gets presented there is not the "self" I am when enveloped in my cocoon-of-the-written-word? ... that is, you can't even strip away part of my world without changing who I am?

paulhanke,

Life is a process, so to the formation and maintaince of personal identity, one is not just paulhanke, in the moment and in the context of the present moment. You have a history of contextual relations which has brought you to the present moment. One cannot leave that behind and start a knew, unless, you have at some point lost all memory of the past, in which case the process starts over again, but with the input of what can be recovered from memory. If you find yourself in a new environment whatever new adaptations, transformations you develop between you and this new environment will of necessity be placed upon the foundations of what has already been layed down. So, you further develop from this point on, undoubtly with the impressions of what your limitations are as well as your known abilitites.


The fact that you wear different hats in different environments is no argument against the stability of your personal identity. Neither personal identity nor the environment are stable in the sense of being static, both are process. Personal identity does not change entirely by a change of context, but perhaps with new approaches to your relations with that environment. Paulhanke is process, any given evironment is also process, brought together no matter the environment your personality your personal identity is one with the enviornment you are in, it is you might say, the life support system of your personal identity. You are subject, environment is object, together you have reality and your reality is your personal perspective, your personal identity.

Changing your evironment might induce a development in your personal identity, a new characteristic, a new behaviour but it can only rest upon the structure already in place. I am unfamilar with the concept of which you speak, this Andy Clark, but I hope what I have had to say answers to the questions posed.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by boagie

Neither personal identity nor the environment are stable in the sense of being static, both are process.

... couldn't have said it better myself - thanks for the independent affirmation