True self and true good

[Eudaimon]

How long shall we believe in ideas we have of ourselves and of others? What can be more stupid than to say: I am that: American, Russian, animal, man, woman etc., etc? Is it not evident that all those names are utterly irrelevant? Society instills in us belief that we are that and we start trying to correspond with those patterns.
First of all, I cannot be anything just because everything exist only because I perceive that. So to call oneself certain thing: animal, biochemical organism is inappropriate. Rather I am one who perceives that.
Other those definitions deal with ideas of what they call the highest good. We are so stuffed with those psychologies which told us: You should live in harmony with your unconscious, otherwise your life will live in a constant conflict. Now we try that and there appears yet bigger conflict that it had been before. Can, indeed, the satisfaction of those fictious "needs" they ascribe us really contribute to our happiness? Is it not time to understand that no one can explain thee what is true good unless thou discoverst that thyself?

[avatar6v7]

A bit wide ranging and vague, so I'll try and focus on one aspect of your post. The question of identity- Russian, American, man and woman- all of which you dismissed as artificial categories. But in doing so you have made a fundamental mistake about the nature of language and reality. Our understanding of the world comes through our senses and we see paterns and meaning that we attempt to express through symbols- this is language in its broadest sense- including speech, painting, music- a medium for meaning. These meanings are artificial in the sense that we are symbolising things- inevitably imperfect- but that which we symbolise is, and symbols are our window into the world, our grasp on reality, our interpretation and understanding of reality. There is somthing true and inherant in being a man or a woman- even if we express that nature imperfectly- and there is somthing true, if not inherant, in having a national identity- it is part of our self expression, of our interaction and connection with other people, the landscape, society, history and culture.

[Eudaimon]

Originally Posted by avatar6v7

A bit wide ranging and vague, so I'll try and focus on one aspect of your post. The question of identity- Russian, American, man and woman- all of which you dismissed as artificial categories. But in doing so you have made a fundamental mistake about the nature of language and reality. Our understanding of the world comes through our senses and we see paterns and meaning that we attempt to express through symbols- this is language in its broadest sense- including speech, painting, music- a medium for meaning. These meanings are artificial in the sense that we are symbolising things- inevitably imperfect- but that which we symbolise is, and symbols are our window into the world, our grasp on reality, our interpretation and understanding of reality. There is somthing true and inherant in being a man or a woman- even if we express that nature imperfectly- and there is somthing true, if not inherant, in having a national identity- it is part of our self expression, of our interaction and connection with other people, the landscape, society, history and culture.

Indeed, there is something true in those symbols. I observe the body which is the only body I can feel and find there certain organs, male or female. Or we may go even further: I find certain urges in my psychic. Out of this I deduce that this body or psychic is of a certain gender. Then I find that this body was born from other bodies with certain features, I find that I am speaking a certain language unlike other people. This is what we call nationality. Naturally, these symbols are not based on nothing as it is evident. But is it I who is these organs? Or rather am I someone who may feel them, act through them? Certainly I am the latter.
When we join our true self, true entity with those things and start thinking: "Aha, I am man or citizen of a state. Therefore should I act according to that. And my good lies within what is presumed to be the good of man, citizen etc." and we start persuit for pleasures, start wars and the like. But why, I ask, do we not consider how those "boons" really affect us, not those ideas we have of ourselves. My country is the powerful in the world, so what, am I happy? I managed to find a super sexual partner, so what? Is it not time to understand voidness of those ideas, just because they do not lead to happiness, peace and love. To fleeting delight, maybe, but not to happiness.

[Alan McDougall]

Originally Posted by Eudaimon

How long shall we believe in ideas we have of ourselves and of others? What can be more stupid than to say: I am that: American, Russian, animal, man, woman etc., etc? Is it not evident that all those names are utterly irrelevant? Society instills in us belief that we are that and we start trying to correspond with those patterns.
First of all, I cannot be anything just because everything exist only because I perceive that. So to call oneself certain thing: animal, biochemical organism is inappropriate. Rather I am one who perceives that.
Other those definitions deal with ideas of what they call the highest good. We are so stuffed with those psychologies which told us: You should live in harmony with your unconscious, otherwise your life will live in a constant conflict. Now we try that and there appears yet bigger conflict that it had been before. Can, indeed, the satisfaction of those fictious "needs" they ascribe us really contribute to our happiness? Is it not time to understand that no one can explain thee what is true good unless thou discoverst that thyself?

I suggest , therefore, that you get spectacles to clarify true perceptive in the light of accepted ethics and human morals

Many would take great exception to your statement that a title like an American means absolutely nothing.

Tell this to the brave US soldiers that dies fighting in the two great wars out of the great pride they had in being an American or British

Society can only influence you when you permit them to influence you

What are these so called fictitious needs? , please name them , would you like to revert to cave dweller living, these poor folk had very few needs outside survival

I do agree with you about the psycho babble we hear all the time , go and find ourselves etc when we are decidedly not lost

Peace to you

Alan

[Eudaimon]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

Many would take great exception to your statement that a title like an American means absolutely nothing.

Tell this to the brave US soldiers that dies fighting in the two great wars out of the great pride they had in being an American or British.

Society can only influence you when you permit them to influence you

I know. But why is it so? They have a certain idea of themselves as being some one. However, it is clear that beyond these words there is no any sense in statement: I am American. It may only mean that this body which I feel was born in America and that I use English language. What's more?

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

I suggest , therefore, that you get spectacles to clarify true perceptive in the light of accepted ethics and human morals
What are these so called fictitious needs? , please name them , would you like to revert to cave dweller living, these poor folk had very few needs outside survival

Respect from others, prestige work, sexual life -- all those things psychologists proclaim intrinsic to human-animal being. See, even food, dwelling etc. are not necessary. Actually, they are necessary to keep this body alive, but for me, true me there is no need in them.

[Philly_CS]

I believe that what you are referring to when you are saying the 'true me' is the being.
Anyways, all of what you said are all based on perspective.
It may be certainly true for you that titles say nothing about oneself, but look at how people let these titles influence themselves.
Sure, they may seem superficial for you, but for some people it is their life.
Now, titles are often needed to convey what you want in this world (this world as in material world, the tangible world).
For example, you don't just go up to a store and expect the guy to know intuitively what you want.
Symbols and titles are needed for materialistic world.
Although, yes, materialism is a deadly thing if you cling strongly to it, but spiritualism too, if you repeatedly say that you don't need food and end up dying.
The thing is to find a balance between materialism and spiritualism; you don't want to be spiritually void, yet you don't want to deprive your body of its needs.
Now, while I agree on the fact that people are getting too attached to their titles, I wouldn't get rid of every title in the world because of it.

Now, when you deal with happiness, it is also the same deal.
To an extent, materialistic things can carry you to happiness, but those materialistic things are, well, bare necessities, such as food, water, etc.
Happiness comes from the bare necessities ALONG with the spiritual peace and an exploration of the inner self.
Again, I don't think you should go out on the street in the name of happiness.

[Eudaimon]

Originally Posted by Philly_CS

I believe that what you are referring to when you are saying the 'true me' is the being.
Anyways, all of what you said are all based on perspective.
It may be certainly true for you that titles say nothing about oneself, but look at how people let these titles influence themselves.
Sure, they may seem superficial for you, but for some people it is their life.
Now, titles are often needed to convey what you want in this world (this world as in material world, the tangible world).
For example, you don't just go up to a store and expect the guy to know intuitively what you want.
Symbols and titles are needed for materialistic world.
Although, yes, materialism is a deadly thing if you cling strongly to it, but spiritualism too, if you repeatedly say that you don't need food and end up dying.
The thing is to find a balance between materialism and spiritualism; you don't want to be spiritually void, yet you don't want to deprive your body of its needs.
Now, while I agree on the fact that people are getting too attached to their titles, I wouldn't get rid of every title in the world because of it.

Now, when you deal with happiness, it is also the same deal.
To an extent, materialistic things can carry you to happiness, but those materialistic things are, well, bare necessities, such as food, water, etc.
Happiness comes from the bare necessities ALONG with the spiritual peace and an exploration of the inner self.
Again, I don't think you should go out on the street in the name of happiness.

We may apply certain symbols to this body, that's true. But the statement: I am that thing is in itself deadly senseless.
And no one makes us deprive ourselves of food, water and shelter just because such a desire roots in egoism, wish to appear as an ascetic. (They are indifferent things; amongst those necessities there are directly harmful: sex, drugs, alcohol which are to be abandoned completely) The point is, however, that without them the "life" of this body will just cease. We cannot say that happiness comes from bare necessities along with exploration of true self just because we don't have enough facts: when we see a happy man that means that he is alive, that is has food etc., but no one has ever seen a dead man being happy. Although even in dying, being deprived of all nacessities it is still possible to be happy. How about martyrs, who experienced terrible tortures yet remaining happy?

[Alan McDougall]

I am who I say I am

I am who I think I am

I am who you think I am

I am this and I am that

I am that I am perceived as being

I am a being

I am life

I am thought

I am a word

I am an Action

This is Who I am

I can become whoever I want to be

I am an entity

I exist

I am

this

[Eudaimon]

There is a good quote from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras which comes direct to the topic:

2.4 Ignorance is the breeding place for all the others whether they are dormant or attenuated, partially overcome or fully operative. 
2.5 Ignorance is taking the non-eternal for the eternal, the impure for the pure, evil for good and non-self as self. 2.6 Egoism is the identification of the power that knows with the instruments of knowing. 

[rhinogrey]

"Egoism is the identification of the power that knows with the instruments of knowing."

I like this one a lot. It really defines where I'm at in my life right now.

I peel away layers, layers at a time. I have control of the layers I peel but not what is revealed in each successive layer—thoughts !pop! into me, I sew them together, I am the unwitting interpreter of a fabric that covers humanity.

Whether it’s DNA or God I have finally succumbed to the notion that it is out of my control. I do not have control, this Self: a depository for experience, an instrument of knowing but not the power of knowing. My intellect is subservient to the will, always plowing forward towards attaining the power of knowing, but never arriving there...somehow I must be condemned to ignorance forever, and yet...