Let's Talk About the Self.

[Metanoia]

There are many points of resonance, yes. But I think one big point of departure between a Buddhist and a Deleuzian metaphysics is on the nature of desire. In Buddhism, as you may know, desire is the root cause of suffering and must be extinguished (to reach Nirvana). In Deleuzian metaphysics, it is the engine of life itself and must be cultivated for its own sake.



Yes, pretty close- but I might use the word immanence (rather than transcendence) to describe this.

I view desire as a child of the ego….no self being synonymous with no ego essentially……

 

[quip]

There are many points of resonance, yes. But I think one big point of departure between a Buddhist and a Deleuzian metaphysics is on the nature of desire. In Buddhism, as you may know, desire is the root cause of suffering and must be extinguished (to reach Nirvana). In Deleuzian metaphysics, it is the engine of life itself and must be cultivated for its own sake.



Yes, pretty close- but I might use the word immanence (rather than transcendence) to describe this.

The theory does not address the issue (pro or con) I'm referring to here yet, it's quite the interesting theory.

 

[SoccerCoach]

I've been pondering about my "self". Specifically, why do I exist, experiencing life through these senses of mine, at this particular time and place.
Why not some time in the future or past, why particularly here and now?

I've posed this on other forums in the past and was met with "There's no such thing as a soul." "It's just chance". Okay so, how does chance work existentially speaking?
For example: I asked you to give me a number at random say, from 1 to 1000 (we'll call that set 'X') and you tell me 452 (we'll call that 'Y')

My randomized 'self' being 'Y'....wherefore lies the corresponding 'X' to this 'Y'?

Isn't asserting the self as a product of randomness infer the existence of something prior to my existence?
Perhaps a soul/spirit?

Thoughts.

You exist to create a life with meaning. You asked why. I assumed you were asking what does my life mean? Thats for you to define. Yes we do have souls and we dont end when we die. I have had experiences with the afterlife and it is very real.
Nothing is random we live in a reality thats free but has natural laws but anything can happen to anyone. You can go to church every Sunday and diue of cancer.
It is your responsibility to live in the chaos and create your own order that has meaning.

 

[SoccerCoach]

What kind of "experiential evidence" would you accept?

Its easy to prove by showing what the lack of free will looks like. Its called an ant or a bee

 

[poppopfox]

Its easy to prove by showing what the lack of free will looks like. Its called an ant or a bee

We ARE human bee-ings!

 

[SoccerCoach]

I think of it this way: things have a way of coming together to create things greater than the sum of their parts. It doesn't mean the end result had some pre-existing "essence" that only now is becoming realized.

For example: a car is really just a bunch of metal, plastic, leather, rubber, etc... But put together, qualities emerge from it that do not exist in its components separately. That doesn't mean a car has any sort of "soul" or essence".

Similarly, a hurricane is just composed of air and water. And yet, when placed under certain contingent conditions, it develops certain properties and it does things that the individual components by themselves do not have. It doesn't mean there is some deep underlying essence of "hurricane" that is being realized.

Now the question you ask has very deep philosophical roots. It goes back to plato, and his idea of "essences", or ideal forms, which exist separate from and in a plane which transcends the physical world, and only manifests itself, even if imperfectly, in the physical forms. This eventually got transformed to the Christian concept of "soul". Later in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, as the world secularized more, this led to the concept of "humanism".

But nowadays, the concept of the self is moving away from even this concept of "humanism", to "post-humanism". If you are interested in all the philosophical history of all this, you might find these videos interesting (if you're going to listen to them, listen to them in the order below. It's hard to understand one without having listened to the prior ones):

The self means self awareness as an individual. Its that simple

 

[ataraxia]

The self means self awareness as an individual. Its that simple

That’s discounting the role of the subconscious, which can be even bigger than what the individual can be aware of.

When you get down to it, the self is fragmented at its core into all sorts of opposing agendas, ideals, and personalities, which are constantly dynamic and in flux; along with all sort of deep, unconscious personal and social/cultural forces and scripts that play in the background and sometimes sabotage the conscious will. It is not a unified or even coherent itself. The conscious self at best tries to navigate among these often warring, competing, and often invisible forces as best it can, but it is not often successful.

No wonder so many people are such anxious and confused wrecks.

I think just acknowledging that irreducible fragmentation of the self can itself be therapeutic.

 

[quip]

You exist to create a life with meaning. You asked why. I assumed you were asking what does my life mean? Thats for you to define. Yes we do have souls and we dont end when we die. I have had experiences with the afterlife and it is very real.
Nothing is random we live in a reality thats free but has natural laws but anything can happen to anyone. You can go to church every Sunday and diue of cancer.
It is your responsibility to live in the chaos and create your own order that has meaning.

I appreciate the response but no, that's not what I'm looking for. Generally speaking the OP is a thought experiment.

 

[Metanoia]

What we call the self is actually an amalgamation of the way other ‘self’s’ have formed us. Unfortunately this is not realized or acknowledged by many being obscured by their egos. Perhaps we should consider “love thy neighbor as thyself” as reading: “love thy neighbor as being thyself” or it would behoove us to recall…..”no man is an island entire of itself”…..