Logical Evaluation of Human Self

[Subjectivity9]

Reconstructo,

Thank you for these Wittgenstein quotes. Yum!

I keep meaning to read more of him. Can you spell procrastinate? ; ^ )

I agree with you, but to go further, “Consciousness is both the root and branch of Being.” (Mine) The body is just imagination much like a dream.

Concepts and thoughts described as being mental objects is very Buddhist, my friend. Have you dabbled?

Ramana, “We don’t live in the world. We live in our head.” (Similar to 5.63)

Lin Chi, “Who is this fellow going in and out of my eyes?” He speaks of this mysterious unseen witness, which escapes being made into an object. (Similar to 5.633)

Your turn, Please tell me what 5.631 and 5.632 makes you think of, in you own words.

This is fun,
S9

[memester]

Isn't everything in the visual field telling you, allowing you to infer, that it's seen by an eye ?

[Subjectivity9]

memester,

Seen by an eye, yes, but what eye; a physical eye, a mental eye, or a Spiritual I?

There are those who believe that there is absolutely nothing there (in the material world) to be seen, except what we project there, a mental projection, (AKA Idealism)

So what?

We mustn’t fall into believing that anyone who doesn’t agree with us, must be a fool.

S9

[Reconstructo]

I think we divide consciousness into subjective and objective after the fact. We call that "objective" which tends to be visible for all or most us. We call that "subjective" which seems to be a more private experience. But as Hegel makes clear, there's a dialectic between these two poles. William James also presented something like this.

I have dabbled in the Eastern, yes. I'm a big fan. The way I see, words are technology enough for psychology. Words can lead us to the transcendental ego, which the philosophical self in Wittgenstein's sense. Heidegger calls it Being. Being is the "light" that makes beings visible. In my view, consciousness is equivalent to both Being and the transcendental ego. Ken Wilbur also wrote well on this. He's a weird guy, but his "A Brief History of Everything" has such clarity and important subject matter that it's worth putting up with his occasional awkwardness. Wilbur's keyword is integration. He's a student of East and West and does his best to fuse them together. For instance, he thinks Buddha and Freud are a potent combo and should be used together. Wilbur does something like combine Hegel and the East in general. He also looks at all the new age religious movements, like Eco and Feminism and such. He looks at history as well. It's quite a synthesis actually. I don't mention him much because he's sort of on the margins. But I learned from him.

On Witt. He basically sees what Heidegger and Hegel and Wilbur see. That what we call the self is just an object of consciousness. By naming a object, we imply the possibility of negation. This is Rumpelstiltskin, for you. We create an object by naming it. But there is something that is impossible to properly name, and that is the philosophical self. Of course we do have words for it, but these words are deceptive. Heidegger wrote the word Being and crossed it out. Because "Being" isn't being. The word "Being" is just an object of consciousness and not consciousness itself. Hegel said that indeterminate being is nothingness. I think this is what Easter traditions have called the "uncreated." Also the Tao says the Way that can be told is not the true Way. In my view, both idealism and realism are limited. But I think idealism is closer to the truth, for reality is a construct of the brain. And yet our lives are evidence that there are other subjectivities out there. One could say that we are all the eyes of God and that God is both subject and substance. (Subject and substance are actually one. Hegel examines this.) So God shatters and each piece of him has a limited viewpoint on all the other pieces of him as they interact together in an environment. "That Art Thou." That's sublime stuff. Seems like the East was ahead of the West on certain central things. But the West seems to be there now as well. Do you know Wittgenstein's life story? Not the usual life by any means. Here are a few links you might find engrossing.
Nondualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Summary of Hegel's Philosophy of Mind
Martin Heidegger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Giambattista Vico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Finnegans Wake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books

---------- Post added 12-22-2009 at 05:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by memester

Isn't everything in the visual field telling you, allowing you to infer, that it's seen by an eye ?

That's a good point. I would say that objectivity and subjectivity are both inferred and also both limited viewpoints. I think a fusion of the two does better justice to our human situation.

I would say that there is, metaphorically speaking, an eye behind the eye. And this is consciousness itself. Which is really one of the strangest concepts to wrestle with... What is consciousness? Is it not equivalent somehow with existence and being? Is it not the "thing" that makes all other things real?

[Subjectivity9]

memester,

The human eye is a tool for seeing this material world, much like a telescope is a tool for seeing the stars, and the electron microscope is for seeing the tiny mitochondria.

If the eye were you, when a surgeon they plucked it out, you would die. Obviously, you are more. But what?

S9

[memester]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

memester,

The human eye is a tool for seeing this material world, much like a telescope is a tool for seeing the stars, and the electron microscope is for seeing the tiny mitochondria.

If the eye were you, when a surgeon they plucked it out, you would die. Obviously, you are more. But what?

S9

The field of enquiry determines the question and kind of answer. In this case, it's "visual feld" that we're talking about. Not "The Ether", Lobsang.

[Subjectivity9]

Reconstructo,

The way that I approach psychology is not through words only, but more directly. For years, I have been participating in a practice called “Mindfulness,” among others. (I meditate on breath.)(Very Buddhist)

No, I am not a Buddhist. I just believe that it is one the best psychologies (Buddhism) to come down the road in a long time.

I also believe that words can go a long way towards understanding oneself, and they are very portable much like money. Words accumulate knowledge, like money accumulates labor for easy transport.

Could you tell me a little bit about Wittgenstein’s philosophical self, and his life, please? I love to learn. {My kingdom for more time, and ambition.} ; ^ )

I agree that the ego-self, and the body/mind-self are mere dream selves (AKA imagination). But, I call Ultimate Consciousness my most Essential Self, and my most Intimate Self, or what the Christian Mystics call the “I Am,” or ‘Presence.” (No these are not God in the usual sense, as a separate Being, (AKA the I/Thou) these are all, “Me.”

It would seem that, “By naming an object, we imply the possibility of negation,” but this is only a failing within our dualistic language, and the human mind that demands, no requires, contrast/comparison.

Also Wittgenstein said there are things that cannot be named, or said with language. He saw this failing in language, because he personally witnessed things, which he couldn’t convey with language. I believe you I are in agreement with him.

“Nothingness,” “uncreated,” or Nagarjuna’s “Empty of emptiness” are all attempts to dance around the (maypole) of “Ultimate Truth, which is full of Its Self, but empty of finitude and mind objects.

The Hindu’s use a practice called Neti/Neti (AKA Not this/Not this) to eliminate everything that is the mind from our view, (Litmus test: if it comes and it goes, it is mind.) so that what is left standing is the Ultimate Consciousness.

Let us remember that the brain is also a physical construct, perhaps a projection as well. Is the brain a creator of this world, or a radio station conveying messages into this dream state?

Calling our mysteries, “ God,” doesn’t add anything. We just have to figure out God.

The Sufi’s say that we are all just the names of God. But, I wonder, is God a jigsaw puzzle with each of us a piece? REALLY? Is God a Gestalt? I find that limiting, too. (Not to mention dependent.)

Thanks for the links.

S9

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Reconstructo,

The way that I approach psychology is not through words only, but more directly. For years, I have been participating in a practice called “Mindfulness,” among others. (I meditate on breath.)(Very Buddhist)

If you mean we should learn by/from personal experience including techniques, I agree. But if we want to communicate, we must use words, usually trope, or art/music/etc. I haven't meditated, but it interests me.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 04:23 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Reconstructo,

I agree that the ego-self, and the body/mind-self are mere dream selves (AKA imagination). But, I call Ultimate Consciousness my most Essential Self, and my most Intimate Self, or what the Christian Mystics call the “I Am,” or ‘Presence.” (No these are not God in the usual sense, as a separate Being, (AKA the I/Thou) these are all, “Me.”

It would seem that, “By naming an object, we imply the possibility of negation,” but this is only a failing within our dualistic language, and the human mind that demands, no requires, contrast/comparison.

“Nothingness,” “uncreated,” or Nagarjuna’s “Empty of emptiness” are all attempts to dance around the (maypole) of “Ultimate Truth, which is full of Its Self, but empty of finitude and mind objects.

The Hindu’s use a practice called Neti/Neti (AKA Not this/Not this) to eliminate everything that is the mind from our view, (Litmus test: if it comes and it goes, it is mind.) so that what is left standing is the Ultimate Consciousness.

Calling our mysteries, “ God,” doesn’t add anything. We just have to figure out God.
S9

This sounds to me like what I mean by Being, Consciousness, and what Wittgenstein means by the philosophical self. The word/negation thing allows us to realize that what we have taken for our "self" is just an object of consciousness. "God" is just a symbol for the ineffable. Or this is one use of the token. I'm not attached to any particular word, but I do think highly of the Bible. "I am what I am. God, etc." --as far as words being essentially discursive/dichotomous I agree. I think you will like those links as they connect very well to this last post of yours.

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 04:25 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

The Sufi’s say that we are all just the names of God. But, I wonder, is God a jigsaw puzzle with each of us a piece? REALLY? Is God a Gestalt? I find that limiting, too. (Not to mention dependent.)
S9

Well, I don't have real dogma. I don't believe in any static truth. It's all poetry. I scribble one for this moment and another for that moment. Truth is a lie. Have you looked at Subversive Absolute Christianity? I started that thread with a twisted interpretation of Christ. Tomorrow maybe I'll make a false god out of my friend from Saturn, Umo.

recon

[Subjectivity9]

Reconstructo,

I think psychology has a lot to do with finding our (Eternal?) Self, and we do not necessarily need words to do that. It all depends on what direction you are looking in.

Like you say, words are not our only tool for communicating. We have a right brain that wants to be heard from.

What is good about some forms of meditation, “Bare Attention” being one, is that you are suppose relax into a place where you can simply watch what is going on in your mind/psyche without preconceptions, or theory. There is a kind of un-worded wisdom that comes out of this activity. But, I am not anti-word by any means.

Yes, a good deal of what we are saying, you/me/and the other guys, seems to be pointing in the same direction, (a rose is a rose, is a rose).

Yes, “God is a symbol for the ineffable,” but unfortunately the word God seems to carry with it a hint of separation. (I/Thou) Whereas I am saying that, separation is an illusion of the mind. So in essence, when we seek God, directly, we are actually seeking our very own Self. Why?

The ego is just a phantom of our imagination, an overlay on top of Ultimate Being. The Hindu’s say that Brahman (Ultimate Being/Ultimate Consciousness) is dreaming,this whole material world is dream stuff. Or that this life we live is merely a dance (process without purpose [AKA play]).

I’m with you. I don’t actually believe ANYTHING at this point in my journey. I contemplate “Pure Being” directly as my Self, as“Me.” I do not try to capture it in either word or concept, in order to own it. No need to own It (Presence/Being), if It is you. Can’t lose it either.

I do enjoy playing with metaphysics, and with psychology, but true wisdom leaves both of those in the dust. They are simply toys for the mind.

This Contemplation I do, starts as a practice, and goes on to become continuous. It is empty of everything, except Presence here and now. (No, it is not a trance state.) It is more like an insight into Being that is purely satisfying and nourishing.

I will read more of your links as time allows. I am one of those people with piles of books beside my chair, waiting for me to get to them.

Smiles,
S9

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

I do enjoy playing with metaphysics, and with psychology, but true wisdom leaves both of those in the dust. They are simply toys for the mind.

I agree. There's an ineffable something beneath discourse. A word like "feeling" could be used, but this is still part of the discourse. Life is lived. Thoughts are the ashes or toys of life. And yet the right metaphor is a key to new perspective. One metaphor incites the next. Discourse itself is a nexus of metaphor. All our language is a web, a system of relations. So talk about god is never god, unless talk itself is god. In a way, Hegel suggests this.
I feel at a state where ideas are toys. I have my sustaining ineffable, no doubt. And this allows me complete doubt in most other areas. Also an experimentation with "faith." One could call a sustaining ineffable "faith" or "grace" or "enlightenment." This would be to eff it, but what of that? Eff what you please, right?