I'm tempted to suggest a Zen cure. Go for a walk, have a cup to tea and a good night's sleep. — Ludwig V

You misunderstand. I say "I" and you offer me respite, but it is mere distraction. I have spent many days crafting this thread and the previous one that laid the groundwork for it, and the zen is built into the laying out of the problem. And here it is again: —

If your map has no territory it is not a map. Or if it is a map, it is a fictional map and consequently not your narrative. — Ludwig V

Take this as a universal truth. Now, who are you? If you do not answer, you go straight to hell, but if you answer you continue the fictional map.

Now I don't expect any sartori to result for anyone, but I am interested in the philosophy and psychology of identification, and I think this process of identification is what humans do that creates the self as an artefact or 'sprite' of the psyche, with all the suffering and trouble that results. I think it is unnecessary. So I will at least lay out and face the problem as best I can, and when a cup of tea is appropriate, I can make a cup of tea as well.

H'm. I need to go carefully here. Which way is straight ahead?

One cannot do philosophy and Zen at the same time, except perhaps in something like the manner of the early Wittgenstein. (The unanswered (and unasked) question is whether he continued that way in his later work. But that tells us nothing.)

If you do not answer, you go straight to hell, but if you answer you continue the fictional map. — unenlightened

If I go straight to hell, I continue the fictional map. Unless I'm already there.

I think it is unnecessary. — unenlightened

I'm not sure about that. What does "necessary" mean here? Some Western philosophers have propounded the answer that there is no self. Buddhism is quite clear about why it is necessary (and how it is not).

I can talk about narrative, though. Here's what bothers me.

What kind of narrative are we talking about here? Whose narrative are we talking about? (You said mine, but I can adopt someone else's and I will probably have more than one narrative about myself.)

Narratives are often disrupted. Sometimes someone else's narrative collides with mine. Sometimes I disrupt my own narrative, whether deliberately or accidentally. Sometimes "events" disrupt my narrative. We can modify our narrative or throw the old one out and make a new one. Whatever we say or do, there is always something "outside" our narrative and narratives are never permanent, even when we are dead. What are we to make of this?

I distinguish between a narrative and a log book. A log book is a series of dots. A narrative connects those dots. Is a log book a safe and satisfactory option?

Did someone say dark side of the moon? Sorry, it may have just been the echoes…

What kind of narrative are we talking about here? Whose narrative are we talking about? (You said mine, but I can adopt someone else's and I will probably have more than one narrative about myself.)

Narratives are often disrupted. Sometimes someone else's narrative collides with mine. Sometimes I disrupt my own narrative, whether deliberately or accidentally. Sometimes "events" disrupt my narrative. We can modify our narrative or throw the old one out and make a new one. Whatever we say or do, there is always something "outside" our narrative and narratives are never permanent, even when we are dead. What are we to make of this?

I distinguish between a narrative and a log book. A log book is a series of dots. A narrative connects those dots. Is a log book a safe and satisfactory option? — Ludwig V

That is your narrative, and this is mine, and they both derive from a shared language and culture and are personalised, edited, and brought into contrast and comparison here. or perhaps it is a log book, I don't know the difference. One always stands outside the narrative to describe it, but it is always oneself one is describing so it is always a narrative self (or a log-book self) and one is never outside it

I underline the contradiction here to make clear that there is something wrong with the narrative of "I", whoever is the centre of attention.

Happy to adopt that as the theme tune of the thread. Says it all without the confusion of so much words.

Overhead the albatross
Hangs motionless upon the air
And deep beneath the rolling waves
In labyrinths of coral caves
The echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand
And everything is green and submarine
And no one showed us to the land
And no one knows the where's or why's
But something stirs and something tries
And starts to climb toward the light
Strangers passing in the street
By chance, two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can?
And no one calls us to move on
And no one forces down our eyes
No one speaks and no one tries
No one flies around the sun
Cloudless everyday
You fall upon my waking eyes
Inviting and inciting me to rise
And through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning
And no one sings me lullabies
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky

And no one sings me lullabies, and no one makes me close my eyes.
So I throw the windows wide and call to you across the sky. Happy to echo that.

:grin: Excellent! Glad to add something useful.
(That video is excellent imho. Made using AI, but it flows with a unified purpose and color theme. It feels like I took a pill that contains the whole internet in it, filtered through the lens of that song. Or something lol).

One always stands outside the narrative to describe it, but it is always oneself one is describing so it is always a narrative self (or a log-book self) and one is never outside it — unenlightened

Yes. So one is always two selves. Or perhaps one self stands in two incompatible relationships to the narrative. Or perhaps there is no outside and no inside because that's a metaphor which is misleading in this context.

I would argue that a non-linguistic animal lives in the interface of past, present and future just as humans do. Watch a squirrel be interrupted in its pursuit of an acorn by a stray sound, and then return to its goal. — Joshs


Yes, they have memories, I said that. but the interface of past and future is the present. I'm not clear what you are saying different? I think I have made the time difference fairly clear. A cat sits by the mouse hole waiting for a mouse; there is anticipation but it is now. there is memory, but it is now. Now there is the acorn, now there is a sound, now there is the acorn. Never do you get the story of the pursuit of the acorn, an interruption and the return to the acorn - that is the human narrative, and resides nowhere in the squirrel. — unenlightened

I suppose the title of this thread is referring to the brief existence of the self-conscious Self : non-being . . . being . . . non-being. Which is a core theme of Religion and Philosophy, but not of Materialistic Philosophy, which knows only non-self : selfless matter. The squirrel is an earnest scientist in pursuit of substantial sustenance, not of essential story. Live for today, because tomorrow does not exist. By contrast, the Myth-makers and Wisdom-seekers find permanent Past and fabricated Future more interesting/important than the fleeting Present : "it is what it is, deal with it!"

As far as we know, humans are the only animals who construct a narrative as they do what the physical body mandates. That self-narrative, as recorded in memory, and in story & song, is the Self. Perhaps the selfish Self motivates the Body to take serial "selfies", to serve as an objective record of the Self-story. We know about the brevity of Self, only because so many of us have left behind objective narratives of a story interrupted. Most of us don't mourn the ending of a squirrel's self, perhaps because we don't know its story. But we do mourn the ellipsis of a loved-one, including a non-human pet, because we are emotionally invested in their story.

Ironically, emotional investment (cathexis) in one's own story may cause us to fear (pre-mourn) the end of the narrative & narrator. That painful bummer in the middle of the story has been evaded by ancient sages in various ways : acceptance, denial, sequel in heaven, etc. But some would have us imitate the innocence of animals by living in the moment, and ceasing to explain & judge ourselves as protagonists in the Self-story. But for humans, that would mean losing the most important thing in the world, Me. :smile:

I think if we could agree that there has to be a continuation of consciousness in some form for the narrative self to continue, and that consciousness can continue without the narrative when the tale is 'completed', and that this completion and continuation is very rare in this world, then that is all I would seek to defend as my belief here. — unenlightened

That seems like a good summary, but I worry about complications.

Ironically, emotional investment (cathexis) in one's own story may cause us to fear (pre-mourn) the end of the narrative & narrator. — Gnomon

There are cases where fear and pre-mourning may not happen, don't you think?
People who risk their lives sometimes seem, at least not to fear or pre-mourn their death. You might argue that's not really the case and some of them may be putting on a brave face; I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility in advance.
People who are dying slow agonizing deaths may welcome the end and even choose to walk before they are pushed, so to speak. There may well be fear there, but the mourning appears to be more for the process of dying than the death.
I guess you're saying that fear and pre-mourning are the usual, normal, default situation. Maybe.

That painful bummer in the middle of the story has been evaded by ancient sages in various ways : acceptance, denial, sequel in heaven, etc. — Gnomon

I agree that for most people that is the usual situation. It depends what you count as the end of the story, and maybe whether each person's story can consists of several episodes, link by continuing consciousness. There is an alternative:-

I think if we could agree that there has to be a continuation of consciousness in some form for the narrative self to continue, and that consciousness can continue without the narrative when the tale is 'completed', and that this completion and continuation is very rare in this world, then that is all I would seek to defend as my belief here. — unenlightened

But some would have us imitate the innocence of animals by living in the moment, and ceasing to explain & judge ourselves as protagonists in the Self-story. — Gnomon

I agree that the innocence of animals implies no judgement. But whether we can cease to explain and judge ourselves" only by imitate (acquiring?) the innocence of animals is another question.

But for humans, that would mean losing the most important thing in the world, Me. :smile: — Gnomon

I wanted to respond that of all the things in the world that you cling to, your self is the one thing you can't escape, for better or worse. But One can lose oneself in a number of ways. Temporary loss by absorption in some activity or spectacle. Episodic loss by multiple personality (though I admit that is a contested concept). Permanent loss by amnesia. Loss by life change, as in becoming a priest or a monk or other major change - would entering witness protection count?

There is much to be said for the narrative about the self-narrative (in one form or another). But isn't it a mistake to mistake it for the whole story? The many varieties of narrative and the many disruptions of narratives that get into self-narratives show that they cannot be the whole story.

There are cases where fear and pre-mourning may not happen, don't you think? — Ludwig V

Yes, but those rare cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule. In my personal case, I take a Stoic attitude toward the cessation of Self : "don't worry about things that you can't control". But then, I suppose some people act as-if they believe they can ward-off death with prayers, or with accumulated positive Karma. :smile:


What did Marcus Aurelius say about death?
“The longest-lived and those who will die soonest lose the same thing. The present is all that they can give up, since that is all you have, and what you do not have, you cannot lose.”

But then, I suppose some people act as-if they believe they can ward-off death with prayers, or with accumulated positive Karma. — Gnomon

Quite so. There are two strands to those stories. Wishful thinking and control of the population. IMO. I've never found them particularly interesting or effective. After all, people often still fear death even if they believe in an after-life, and seldom show much relluctance to do what they believe will bring eternal punishment.

What did Marcus Aurelius say about death? — Gnomon

Yes, I'm very fond of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. It's hard to believe he could hold down his job and think like that.

Yes. So one is always two selves. — Ludwig V

Thought produces that conflict whenever it turns inward. So the tradition of meditation is to be aware of the flow of thought without further comment or judgement until the flow ceases. Thus the Zen koan is unanswerable, so as to block the road of thinking: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" When the flow of thought ceases, the conflict of the self that is not itself ends.

And then it starts again because there is always another thought, like this ... until one has one's 'every minute zen', at which point, if anyone asks you about the sound of one hand clapping , you give them a hearty slap or some such.

Anyway, I'm about out of borrowed wisdom on this topic, so I'll bow out here, but feel free to continue, and thanks for your contributions.

And then it starts again because there is always another thought, like this ... until one has one's 'every minute zen', at which point, if anyone asks you about the sound of one hand clapping , you give them a hearty slap or some such. — unenlightened

All quite sound, and something I have long taken as a guidepost to wisdom. But the thing I'm now wrestling with is that Zen wisdom (as Buddhism generally) was very much a product of a monastic life, whereas I myself, average middle class guy, has the possessions and encumbrances that don't just pass on, like our thoughts do. Or rather, they are the externalised form of our thoughts and desires - just those kinds of things which the homeless monks and wanderers have renounced. And outside that context it has another meaning.

Don't get me wrong - I am thoroughly on board with the principle - but walking the walk is something else.

When the flow of thought ceases, the conflict of the self that is not itself ends.

And then it starts again... — unenlightened

Very interesting. Can we really say that it ended then? Or is it just always like that, punctuated, with various lengths of punctuation? Punctuation is not an end and a beginning, because something carries through, some kind of continuity, so that we say the parts are connected as one. The narrative is punctuated, but the story continues through the punctuations where the narrative is absent. What part of the story is this, an essential part of the story which connects the parts of the narrative, but not itself part of the narrative? And how is it that the story itself is something other than the narrative?

Punctuation is not an end and a beginning, because something carries through, some kind of continuity, so that we say the parts are connected as one — Metaphysician Undercover

There is actually a Buddhist answer to that question, in form of the principle of 'nirodha' (cessation. It has been compared to, and might actually be the source of, 'epoche', or 'suspension of judgement' according to the suggested connection between Buddhism and Pyrrhonian scepticism.) Nirodha is, in some contexts, a synonym of Nirvāṇa - the cessation of any sense of 'I and mine', through insight into dependent origination grounded in meditative awareness of the psycho-physiological activities of the body-mind. What 'carries through' are the impulses and desires that continue to seek embodiment - until such time as they don't. (Hence the designation of various grades of realisation as 'once-returner', 'never-returner' etc.)

Can we really say that it ended then? — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we really say it began?

I wonder what you mean by "really say"? I did really write it, and it seems to me that a train can really stop, and then start again. A process like identification can begin, and can end, and can begin again. I can stop smoking and then start again, or I can stop smoking and never start again. what's the problem?

And how is it that the story itself is something other than the narrative? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have bee quite clear from the beginning that the thread and the topic is all narrative and none other.

- but walking the walk is something else. — Wayfarer

To walk to the very end of self is arduous; one tires, one is in pain, and it seems hopeless. and when all hope is exhausted, one lays down.

I can stop smoking and then start again, or I can stop smoking and never start again. what's the problem? — unenlightened

Is there not a difference to you, between stopping and starting again, and stopping and never starting again? The problem is, that when it stops, how can you know whether it will start again or not, in order to say the right thing about it? Someone says "I quit smoking" and two weeks later they're smoking. Another person says "I quit smoking", and five years later they still have yet to smoke. One might be inclined to say that the latter has stopped and will never start again, but then the next day you might find them smoking.

To stop and then start again, and to stop and never start again are two very different things. But when something just stops, how do we know which is which?

A process like identification can begin, and can end, and can begin again. — unenlightened

So maybe I misspoke to ask "can we really say it?", but the question would be "what does it really mean to say this?". If we allow that whatever ended might at any moment begin again, then we need to justify that the thing which just started is that same thing as the thing which already ended, and not simply something similar, if this is supposed to be an "identification". That's where the difference lies, if it starts again, as the same thing, there must be something which connects the two instances or else they are similar occurrences of distinct things, and not the same thing starting again.

If the "thing" in question is a process, we can attribute that process to something else, and the something else can provide the means for the proposed continuity. In your examples therefore, it is you who stops writing and starts again, you who stops smoking, and starts again, and the train which starts and stops. So the subject, you or the train, of which the process is predicated, provides the required continuity of existence. You have provided a subject, and are speaking of your activity, the train's activity, and we assume that you continue being even though the activity which describes you through predication, stops.

This is the way that Aristotle describes the capacities of the soul, self-nourishment, self-movement, sensation, intellection, etc., as potentials. Each is an activity, something that the body does, which consists of stops and starts. Since no specific activity is active all the time, he designates these powers of the soul as potentials, requiring actualization for each occurrence, or start-up. There is therefore the need for an actuality which provides the continuity, and is the source of actualization for each start-up, and this is the soul itself.

I have bee quite clear from the beginning that the thread and the topic is all narrative and none other. — unenlightened

The glaring problem in what you have been quite clear from the beginning about, is that you have been incessantly trying to assign identity to the narrative. And this is where the narrative inevitably fails. The stops and starts, punctuation, of the narrative indicates that we must assume something else, behind the narrative to provide for the assumed continuity which makes "the narrative" appear as a coherent whole. This is "the story" which the narrative tells, and the story is distinct from the narrative.

If identity was all in the narrative, then how would I distinguish one subject from another when you write in this thread, or another thread? Instead, I assign identity to the author, and look at any narrative as an activity of the author. This allows me to see unenlightened, with one identity, as the author of many narratives, instead of concluding that unenlightened has many identities, according to the many narratives.

To stop and then start again, and to stop and never start again are two very different things. But when something just stops, how do we know which is which? — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't, not until the end of the story. Stopping is like dots at the end of the sentence, or the fading out of the music as the end of the song. You can't be sure that the story has ended - yet. And "yet" can be postponed indefinitely. There's a nice complication. Arguably, the end of a narrative is always, in a sense, arbitrary. Part of the art of the novelist/story-teller is providing an ending that is, somehow, satisfactory. (The same, of course, applies to beginnings) That's what makes a narrative artificial, in a sense. Is there, perhaps, an awkwardness about idea that narrative is identity. Not that it's wrong, exactly, but that our narratives and consequently our selves are constructed or adopted (like a role).

If identity was all in the narrative, then how would I distinguish one subject from another when you write in this thread, or another thread? Instead, I assign identity to the author, and look at any narrative as an activity of the author. This allows me to see unenlightened, with one identity, as the author of many narratives, instead of concluding that unenlightened has many identities, according to the many narratives. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's another complication here, (which I was about to trip over at the end of my last paragraph. unenlightened's link between narrative and identity focuses on the stories we tell ourselves. But other people tell their own stories, not only about themselves, but also about us. If our identity was entirely up to us, those stories would be irrelevant. But we are social (even if we are hermits). Worse than that, our very first identity is landed on us (or, as some would have it) we are "thrown" into our world, and we learn that identity and so learn what identity is. We adopt it for lack of choice; sometimes we rebel and seek to end that narrative and create our own. Others may go along with that, or may not.

I don't know how to articulate the next point properly, so I shall ask questions instead. What ensures that there is a single narrative throughout a biological life? What makes it impossible to live more than one narrative at a time? If the answer to those questions is Nothing, and a narrative defines a self, doesn't it follow that multiple narratives and multiple selves are possible? Apart from our legislation, what makes that conclusion paradoxical?

We don't, not until the end of the story. — Ludwig V

But the whole point was, how do we know that it's the end of the story, rather than just a pause? Even when the story teller makes you think it's "the end of the story", a couple years later there will be another one, which is really a continuation of the old one, and it will turn into a series.

There's another complication here, (which I was about to trip over at the end of my last paragraph. unenlightened's link between narrative and identity focuses on the stories we tell ourselves. — Ludwig V

Yes, unenlightened's self-identity narrative seems to be a sort of self-describing story. Maybe an autobiography?

I don't know how to articulate the next point properly, so I shall ask questions instead. What ensures that there is a single narrative throughout a biological life? What makes it impossible to live more than one narrative at a time? If the answer to those questions is Nothing, and a narrative defines a self, doesn't it follow that multiple narratives and multiple selves are possible? Apart from our legislation, what makes that conclusion paradoxical? — Ludwig V

This is one of the problems I brought up, with associating identity with the narrative. Not only does it make it possible for multiple identities, but the difference between how one describes oneself, and how others do, (which you mentioned), necessitates multiple identities. We might say the the self-describing narrative provides the true identity, but we still get the possibility of intentional deception and multiple identities by accident, or through ignorance of oneself.

To be able to flush out the deceiver as presenting a false identity, or the ignorant identity, we need to be able to look at something beyond the self-describing narrative as the true indicator of identity.

Is there not a difference to you, between stopping and starting again, and stopping and never starting again? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is all the difference in the world. I know, because i have done both. The first is difficult and painful because one is in conflict the whole time, whereas the second is easy because there is no conflict.

One knows when there is no internal conflict. If one is unsure, there is conflict.

Stopping is like dots at the end of the sentence, or the fading out of the music as the end of the song. You can't be sure that the story has ended - yet. And "yet" can be postponed indefinitely. There's a nice complication. Arguably, the end of a narrative is always, in a sense, arbitrary. — Ludwig V

Not all songs fade out, the best reach a harmonic resolution that completes and satisfies. Not all lives peter out incomplete; not all stories end in dots of unfinished business and regrets.

"It was in that moment that Hirem Pawnitof, the highwayman, attained enlightenment."

"And they all lived happily ever after."

To be able to flush out the deceiver as presenting a false identity, or the ignorant identity, we need to be able to look at something beyond the self-describing narrative as the true indicator of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

H'm. I'm not sure that there is, or has to be, a "true" identity. Certainly, if you consider the multiple roles played by most people during their lives, it wouldn't be appropriate to insist that just one of them was the truth and the rest, in some sense, ancillary.

It's different with a sequence of narratives, and there is a temptation to treat what X accepts as X's life as primary or more important than other narratives. But consider Hitler's version of his own life and death with that of history. (He never accepted that he did anything wrong and blamed others for all the disasters.) Which is the truth?

Not all songs fade out, the best reach a harmonic resolution that completes and satisfies. Not all lives peter out incomplete; not all stories end in dots of unfinished business and regrets. — unenlightened

True. I didn't mean to imply that they all did, and most of them end with a harmonic resolution - completing and satisfying is not, I think, automatic. But my point was that the resolution doesn't just happen (although it may appear to). It is designed, constructed, not automatic.

A life that reaches a completion of some sort followed swiftly by death may well occur from time to time, but it certainly isn't automatic. I'm not sure that an incomplete life is necessarily ending in regret. I suspect that most lives end with unfinished business; life goes on until the end, and while life is on-going, business is on-going. There's bound to be unfinished business. Though, of course, opinions might differ about whether certain business is unfinished or not.

May you find genuine contentment within you my friend...

...and for whatever it's worth... the bit of scripture you mumbled about camels and needles... the term "needle" does not pick out a sharp metal piece of sewing equipment... not in that context. It's some kind of architectural detail, I think, similar to an archway. So... it's hard... but not impossible... if you believe the scripture, of course.

the cessation of any sense of 'I and mine', through insight into dependent origination grounded in meditative awareness of the psycho-physiological activities of the body-mind. — Quixodian

This account seems too reductive to me. For me, it is simply loss of egoic attachment, a kind of "flow state", and there is no explanation that can reliably specify what is required or effective for that to occur. I know it is a possibility, that it is basically what is described as a flow state, since I have experienced it. I often get into that state when painting, playing music, woodworking, hiking, exercising, or writing. Whether it can be permanent is another question; by some accounts it is possible, but I have no way of knowing unless it happened to me and I didn't revert.

Indeed, the way I heard it, a narrow gateway, you could only get a camel through unladen, or a rich man dispossessed of his burden of wealth.

There is nothing rich about a rich man apart from his riches. Which 'you can't take with you', as every grave robber will attest. But for my part, I have never intended, in this thread or on this site, to make any claim as to what if anything lies beyond this world or beyond the the grave. But I do attest that I have stopped smoking without the least regret or desire to restart. And this is not a boast, because it is not an achievement at all, but an honest report intended to be helpful to others in conflict about their habits.

There is nothing smokey about a smoker apart from his smoking habit, and the practice is the result of a habit of mind. What I have discovered is that the way one looks inwards at oneself needs to be different to the way one looks outwards. Outwardly, one needs to to distinguish the edible mushroom from the poisonous, and eat the one and avoid the other. But in looking at oneself in this way, in distinguishing beneficial habits from harmful habits, one creates a division and a conflict in oneself. In condemning the habit of smoking in myself, I am creating an imaginary non-smoker wagging his finger at the imaginary smoker. And then I can act out the conflict between them for many years a stop-start addiction, of self resentment and complaint. Whereas if I change my mind, I see without that conflict and without that division that tobacco is poisonous to me, then there is no difficulty.

I think this act of inward seeing without division might be what you mean by 'true self'. For fifty years I have been a smoker, or a smoker in remission, like a man trying to cross a ravine on a narrow bridge, but desperately holding onto the post at the beginning, knowing he has to let go in order to get across, but even in letting go, unable to take a step because the urge to grasp the pole again is so strong. And then I realise that the post I think I need is not helping me cross safely, but preventing me from crossing at all. I need the bridge, not the post. And with that realisation I set out, and the post is left behind.

Sweet!

Funny. I lasted smoked a month ago... Congrats. I agree with the habits of mind bit... very much so. The power of thought and words is like magic.