Self Consciousness

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Self Consciousness

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 12:55 am
I'm interested in self's concept of itself. It seems to me that the "self" as we know it isn't the self. The self has a representation of the world that includes a representation of this self itself. Or the self has a representation of the self that includes this self's experience of the world. Holistically, it's a singular self-world-web. A totality of experience that eats and excretes itself, conceptually or dialectically -- conversations like this.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 01:58 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:
I'm interested in self's concept of itself. It seems to me that the "self" as we know it isn't the self. The self has a representation of the world that includes a representation of this self itself. Or the self has a representation of the self that includes this self's experience of the world. Holistically, it's a singular self-world-web. A totality of experience that eats and excretes itself, conceptually or dialectically -- conversations like this.


I'm looking for a way to attack myself here. But I'm still interested in this self's representation of itself. I was hoping to demonstrate some self-consciousness here. I thought it would seem witty, I guess.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:01 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

I'm looking for a way to attack myself here. But I'm still interested in this self's representation of itself. I was hoping to demonstrate some self-consciousness here. I thought it would seem witty, I guess.


This is like a guy I know who sings this song to his wife that goes "Coffee the Snowman" to the tune of Frosty. And he does this in the mornings, knowing that his wife is not amused. But this is an opportunity for the second performance, which is an improvised response (the real show) to her playful rejection of the song's comedic value.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:03 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

This is like a guy I know who sings this song to his wife that goes "Coffee the Snowman" to the tune of Frosty. And he does this in the mornings, knowing that his wife is not amused. But this is an opportunity for the second performance, which is an improvised response (the real show) to her playful rejection of the song's comedic value.


The more you pursue this pseudo-fusion which you happen to have rightfully called "foolosophy," the more convinced I become that you are not only unwilling but incapable of doing the real work of a philosopher. We call it "philosophy that matters."

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:05 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

I'm looking for a way to attack myself here.


Looking for a way to attack yourself is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:07 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

Looking for a way to attack yourself is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Let me assure you, sir, how important your opinion is to me.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:12 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

The more you pursue this pseudo-fusion which you happen to have rightfully called "foolosophy," the more convinced I become that you are not only unwilling but incapable of doing the real work of a philosopher. We call it "philosophy that matters."

Bring me my camera. Here comes the Bluff. Here comes the little war dance. Look at him go, ma! He right right right know all. The man who is afraid to suspect himself of foolishness. Mr. Truth is Me. Mr. My Way.

Mr. Comfort and Mr. Handshake are his associates.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:13 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

Mr. Comfort and Mr. Handshake are his associates.


So says Sir Maladjustment.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 05:34 am
@Reconstructo,
I would be careful, schizophrenia is very encouraged by self analysis. Your wife may catch you talking to yourself and then have good reason to lock you up.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 10:56 am
@Reconstructo,
Self-conscious of ourselves as an enduring entity? But this involves, one might suppose, memory; and memory can be selective. Perhaps who we suppose we are now would influence our memory of who we were at one time (s). Can we determine, by looking at ourselves and comparing us with Others, any sort of causal relationship working to produce a personality?
Self-consciousness of perceptions? But if I say, I feel pain, which one would think would be absolutely immediate self-consciousness, we can be deluded by malfunctioning sensory organs.

If this kind of knowledge is never certain, then can we even call it "knowledge?"

There are things about myself only I can know.
There are things about myself only Others can know.
There are things about myself both can know.
and so on.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 03:50 pm
@xris,
xris;128933 wrote:
I would be careful, schizophrenia is very encouraged by self analysis. Your wife may catch you talking to yourself and then have good reason to lock you up.


This eccentricity of mine is one of the ways I keep her. I invent hundreds of characters and voices to amuse her. I put on improvised "radio" plays, you might say. Make em laugh and they will do you no wrong.

For me, self-enlargement and internal dialogue are almost synonymous. I fancy myself a writer. Besides, I had no choice in the first place.

This dialogue which I now indulge in playfully was once a serious spiritual crisis. Of course it was a different dialogue then.

I developed philosophy as a tool of survival. At some point it did this survival job so well that I started treating it like a toy. Is this related to the invention of contraception?

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 04:53 PM ----------

jgweed;129020 wrote:

If this kind of knowledge is never certain, then can we even call it "knowledge?"


Good question. I wonder if any knowledge is certain. Is certainty just an emotion?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 11:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

Bring me my camera. Here comes the Bluff. Here comes the little war dance. Look at him go, ma! He right right right know all. The man who is afraid to suspect himself of foolishness. Mr. Truth is Me. Mr. My Way.

Mr. Comfort and Mr. Handshake are his associates.


Take less acid the next time you feel like reading Dickens. I beg you.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 11:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;128866 wrote:

The more you pursue this pseudo-fusion which you happen to have rightfully called "foolosophy," the more convinced I become that you are not only unwilling but incapable of doing the real work of a philosopher. We call it "philosophy that matters."


I call it the "philosophy that flatters." You don't want philosophy as a process but philosophy as the Final Word. You can't imagine the "intellectual" divorced from the immediately social. Your attitude is macho like Marx's was. If you can't brown your toast with it yesterday it isn't "real."

Truth and power, brother. Consider the relationship. Like any true believer, you want to connect yourself to some social pseudo-objective absolute. You need a club with rules or you just don't feel right. I'm happy to play Shem to your Shaun (Finnegans Wake, as you probably find literature to frivolous, too like-a-woman). I will also adopt the truth-as-woman trope as a counter move to your truth-as-daddy implicit trope.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 03:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129870 wrote:

Truth and power, brother. Consider the relationship. Like any true believer, you want to connect yourself to some social pseudo-objective absolute. You need a club with rules or you just don't feel right. I'm happy to play Shem to your Shaun (Finnegans Wake, as you probably find literature to frivolous, too like-a-woman). I will also adopt the truth-as-woman trope as a counter move to your truth-as-daddy implicit trope.


Like any alienated onanistic inanity, you have your reasons for despising Reason. You spit on traditions you are not worthy of. Truth-as-daddy? Were it not for the men who faced reality, you wouldn't have the necessary luxury to subvert (unsuccessfully) the principles you have to thank for this luxury. Yes, Finnegans Wake is frivolous. It's written for the useless narcissist by the useless narcissist. The drop-outs have time on their hands. They need some little toy to make them feel less like drop-outs. They need their pseudo-intellectual pseudo-cerdentials. Truth as a woman? You sell un-truth as an all-forgiving mother to those with a distaste for reality.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 02:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130094 wrote:
Like any alienated onanistic inanity, you have your reasons for despising Reason. You spit on traditions you are not worthy of. Truth-as-daddy? Were it not for the men who faced reality, you wouldn't have the necessary luxury to subvert (unsuccessfully) the principles you have to thank for this luxury. Yes, Finnegans Wake is frivolous. It's written for the useless narcissist by the useless narcissist. The drop-outs have time on their hands. They need some little toy to make them feel less like drop-outs. They need their pseudo-intellectual pseudo-cerdentials. Truth as a woman? You sell un-truth as an all-forgiving mother to those with a distaste for reality.


I want openings, not fences. You want an answer you can worship, as you have no faith in your individual all-too-mortal self. Those who can't go it alone resent the few who can. And maybe there's an element of bluff here, but there's certainly an element of cowardice on your side.
 
chad3006
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:09 pm
@Reconstructo,
If one could truly seperate themselves from "themself" and come to know that self objectively and fully. Is it possible that one would still not know themselves fully. Because at that "eureka" moment, the self changes. Self becomes self + 1.

So, self+1 can know the self that was.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 12:10 am
@chad3006,
chad3006;131114 wrote:
If one could truly seperate themselves from "themself" and come to know that self objectively and fully. Is it possible that one would still not know themselves fully. Because at that "eureka" moment, the self changes. Self becomes self + 1.

So, self+1 can know the self that was.



one eye over zero. 1i/0
 
Twilight Siren
 
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:36 am
@Reconstructo,
I can't really presume to say what "self" is, because it is my ego typing.

From what I understand, your "self" is what's underneath all your b.s.

You are not your body, your mind, your ego, your ideas, your words, your beliefs . . . you are what's underneath it all.

Or maybe this is your "true self" . . .
. . . is there a difference between "self" as we mention here and "true self"?

I wont argue with myself on this one, only ask for others' opinions or views!!Laughing
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 01:39 pm
@Reconstructo,
"The self is the limit of the world." L.W.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 02:51 pm
@Reconstructo,
One may be wise to search in the basic of understanding the topic.

What makes a baby consious, when we define all our advanced techonology as not? We have robots who have far greater knowledge database, able to process pictures through cameras far faster and better than a baby.

A baby doesn't understand all it's impressions which it will recive.
 
jack phil
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
I would wager an adult doesn't understand all his/her impressions, either.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:47 pm
@jack phil,
jack;145790 wrote:
I would wager an adult doesn't understand all his/her impressions, either.


Perhaps children and adults learn to filter impressions based on what things give them the greatest amount of control over their environment, or in some other manner gratify them. Perhaps this is how our 'worlds' are created. Of course, worlds can and do collide - often around the time of adolescence.
 
Baal
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:53 pm
@PappasNick,
I truly wonder whether dialog with one's self is actually anything but exploiting the absurdity of its happening in the first place. Dialog wiht one's self is not dialectic, it is not reflective either; it perhaps is the exact opposite; it is not a reflection, but a mirror imaged, with a crude image badly superimposed over the area where the face would appear on the mirror.

A true reflection would be something that can fool, or something which at least oversteps and exceeds the boundaries of truth and perception altogether - no - this is not perception, but rather reflection, where something actually bounces back, something refracts, something passes; it is neither an original nor a mirror but a reflection, a by-product which, if paid attention to, becomes its own ideal, its own notion.

The self qua himself etc. does not change, it is always a matter of identity, the self is the Essence, it itself never changes; it is only the manifestation, the form of realization, the path to the awareness of the actual self which changes -- but yet at the end of the day, just points to the same thing.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:01 pm
@Baal,
Baal;145796 wrote:
I truly wonder whether dialog with one's self is actually anything but exploiting the absurdity of its happening in the first place.


Perhaps dialogue within oneself is the echoes of what others have said being confronted by your reasoning faculty.
 
Baal
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:17 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;145800 wrote:
Perhaps dialogue within oneself is the echoes of what others have said being confronted by your reasoning faculty.


Ahh.. but dialogue with one's self, since it is the self, directly precludes that of being anything of an echo of others' faculties. It does nto come from the same approach, direction etc. etc. -- certainly not if one is to look from an individualistic perspective. Perhaps in a collective sense, and indeed the dialogs of Socrates and a lot of the dialogical apologia found in medieval times reflects just that -- the collective form of thought, where the notion of the dialog with one's self is precisely collective, it is the collective conscious asking, and the collective conscious, the {divinely,rationally,...}-inspired response.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 05:25 pm
@Baal,
Baal;145849 wrote:
Ahh.. but dialogue with one's self, since it is the self, directly precludes that of being anything of an echo of others' faculties. It does nto come from the same approach, direction etc. etc. -- certainly not if one is to look from an individualistic perspective. Perhaps in a collective sense, and indeed the dialogs of Socrates and a lot of the dialogical apologia found in medieval times reflects just that -- the collective form of thought, where the notion of the dialog with one's self is precisely collective, it is the collective conscious asking, and the collective conscious, the {divinely,rationally,...}-inspired response.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Self Consciousness
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 06:10:27