Were I to have posted on Facebook what I wrote here, Im pretty sure I would have awoken this morning to a friend list that had magically shrunk in half. Thanks for the thoughtful responses guys. I used to think that anonymity made us into uncaring beasts....now Im wondering whether maybe the opposite isn't true.
Pointedstick wrote:
Doodle, I think you're having trouble with the concept of
synecdoche. Don't worry, you're in good company: Kshartle does too!
Basically, I think once you start to examine something's components really deeply, it can become baffling to imagine how they actually come together into a whole, especially if the components are all interchangeable or replaceable. Like your example of all your cells: though the cells are indeed different, you're still "you." But what is it that makes you you? As you say, it can't be your cells, or your ideas, your beliefs, or any of your other components.
Kind of like when you take apart some gadget as a kid into a million pieces only to realize that you forgot to write down instructions along the way and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of you ever getting them back together again?
Rather, it's the combination of everything that makes up the idea of a person named doodle (Or Albert J. Pastaface, or whatever your real name is). It's not altogether unlike how a corporation can continue to exist even after changing leadership, firing all the employees and replacing them with different ones, moving to a new building, and changing industries. The corporation represents a shell holding all of its components, in the same way that you represent a shell holding your cells, ideas, beliefs, and memories. Even if all of those things change, the shell that holds them remains in existence until all of the components are destroyed all at once (i.e. death).
I agree...I am a concept or idea. That gets confusing though....whose concept am I? I am my own concept? So I am a concept inside of a concept?
Anyways, I feel that the distinction that separates me from my environment is an arbitrary one anymore than my heart could decide that it was an independent entity and leap out of my body. This vaguely reminds me of Buckminster Fuller when he said: "I live on Earth at present, and I don't know what I am. I know that I am not a category. I am not a thing—a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process—an integral function of the universe."
MediumTex wrote:
What I found in my journey is that you have to overcome what you might call "faux humility" and find a way to really quiet down the inner dialogue and just take the world in without judgment. Judge "see" things, not in some Nirvana-like state of meditation, but just seeing things without an excessive number of mental and emotional filters narrowing your aperture. Just "looking" and "seeing."
I found that when I reduced the need to project my own personality onto situations, they started to make more sense, and ironically this pulling back often resulted in me feeling more connected to situations because I would see more of everything else and less of me, which allowed me to understand the situation in a way that I never did before. This level of understanding creates strong and durable connections to people and events, and ironically made me feel more involved and connected than ever before.
It's a process, though. You aren't necessarily persuaded to stop beating your head against a wall after just a few hits. It takes time.
Ive been trying to observe life without running it through all sorts of categorization, judgment, analysis, etc. filters. However, at the moment this just makes everything seem completely alien to me. When I do this non-judgmental observation its almost like I forget that I am human. People just look like squirmy semi-gelatinous creatures with tentacles and teeth making all sorts of gibberish type noises. Maybe I need to adjust my settings when conducting this exercise....
doodle also seems to have mood swings. Often he is perfectly lucid and has a reliable point of view, while other times he seems like one of those Occupy Wall Street people after a few peyote buttons. This is the internet, though, so acting wild here and there isn't a sin, and I like doodle very much.
Im consistent like nature...one minute Im a placid park with deer munching on clover and the next Im liquid magma spewing a mile high. :-)
Mountaineer wrote:
doodle,
Hang in there buddy! If you are anything at all like me, it is hard to come to grips with the fact some questions have no provable answers. I hope you find a true friend with whom you can share your deepest thoughts and feelings without fear of judgement, i.e. a relationship built on mutual trust.
... Mountaineer
I think if I brought up this topic with most of my "friends" they would quickly cease to consider themselves as that anymore :-)
One interesting idea that I came across recently that really strikes a chord with me is the Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD) by Kazimierz D?browski which describes a theory of personality development.
Unlike mainstream psychology, D?browski's theoretical framework views psychological tension and anxiety as necessary for growth. These "disintegrative" processes are therefore seen as "positive," whereas people who fail to go through positive disintegration may remain for their entire lives in a state of "primary integration." Advancing into disintegration and into the higher levels of development is predicated on having developmental potential, including overexcitabilities and above-average reactions to stimuli.
D?browski observed that most people live their lives in a state of "primary or primitive integration" largely guided by biological impulses ("first factor") and/or by uncritical endorsement and adherence to social convention ("second factor"). He called this initial integration Level I. D?browski observed that at this level there is no true individual expression of the autonomous human self. Individual expression at Level I is influenced and constrained by the first two factors.
The first factor channels energy and talents toward accomplishing self-serving goals that reflect the lower instincts and biological ego — its primary focus is on survival and self-advancement. Often talents are used in antisocial or asocial ways. For example, at the lowest edge of Level I many criminals display this type of selfish behavior. They advance their own goals at the expense of others.
The second factor, the social environment (milieu) and peer pressure, constrains individual expression and creativity by encouraging a group view of life and discouraging unique thought and expression. The second factor externalizes values and mores, thereby externalizing conscience. Social forces shape expectations. Behavior and one's talents and creativity are funneled into forms that follow and support the existing social milieu. "My mom says we should always be aware of what our lawn looks like because we want other people to think well of us when they drive by." Because conscience is derived from an external social context, so long as society holds ethical standards, people influenced by the second factor will behave ethically. However if a society, church, or government becomes corrupt, as in Nazi Germany, people strongly influenced by second factor will not dissent. Socialization without individual examination leads to a rote and robotic existence (the "robopath" described by Ludwig von Bertalanffy). Individual reactions are not unique, they are based upon social contexts ("I cry at funerals and laugh at weddings — everyone does"). According to D?browski, people primarily motivated by second factor represent a significant majority of the general population.
D?browski felt that our society was largely influenced by these lower two factors and could be characterized as operating at Level I. For example, our emphasis on corporate success ("a dog eat dog mentality") means that many CEOs operate on the basis of first factor — they will quickly sacrifice another to enhance their own advancement. As well, our educational, political, corporate, and media systems are self-promoting and discourage real examination or individual autonomy — the second factor. Alternatively, social justifications are often used: "of course I break the speed limit, everyone does." Or a soldier may explain that he or she was simply "following orders." Thus, this external value system absolves the individual of any individual responsibility.
D?browski also described a group of people who display a different course: an individualized developmental pathway. These people break away from an automatic, rote, socialized view of life (which D?browski called negative adjustment) and move into and through a series of personal disintegrations. D?browski saw these disintegrations as a key element in the overall developmental process. Crises challenge our status quo and cause us to review our self, ideas, values, thoughts, ideals, etc. If development continues, one goes on to develop an individualized, conscious and critically evaluated hierarchical value structure (called positive adjustment). This hierarchy of values acts as a benchmark by which all things are now seen, and the higher values in our internal hierarchy come to direct our behavior (no longer based on external social mores). These higher, individual values characterize an eventual second integration reflecting individual autonomy and for D?browski, mark the arrival of true human personality. At this level, each person develops his or her own vision of how life ought to be and lives it. This higher level is associated with strong individual approaches to problem solving and creativity. One's talents and creativity are applied in the service of these higher individual values and visions of how life could be - how the world ought to be. The person expresses his or her "new" autonomous personality energetically through action, art, social change and so on.
The first and fifth levels are characterized by psychological integration, harmony, and little inner conflict. There is little internal conflict at Level I because just about every behavior is justified — it is either good for the individual and is therefore "right," or the individual's society endorses it and it is therefore "right." In either case, with a high level of confidence the individual acts as he or she perceives anyone else would, and does what anyone is "supposed to do." At Level V there is no internal conflict because what a person does is always in accord with their own internal sense of values. Of course, there is often external conflict at both Levels I and V.
Levels II, III and IV describe various degrees and types of dis-integration and literal dis-ease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration
