So we just went around in a circle. After making that big circle, do you see now why the narrative of the self cannot comprise the identity of the self? If the self knows that there is nothing real about the narrative, it's just a story, then it must also know that it cannot identify itself with that narrative which is just a story.

Sure, what I say is just a story as well, but it is a story with a lesson to be learned. If you see the self as distinct from the narrative, as you clearly do, then you must also see that you cannot use the narrative to identify yourself, because that which is in the narrative is not you and therefore cannot provide you with your identity. Nor can you find your identity in the narrative in any way, because that is not you in the narrative, it's just a story, so it cannot be your identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. And shall we go round the circle again, or shall we stop here? The next step is that you tell me what real identity is... again.

I'm in full agreement that the passions are not necessarily irrational, though. That's one reason why the distinction is fuzzy in normal use. There are frequent examples which touch on both the objective and the subjective, such as the category of "reasonable emotions" -- which I endorse as a good way of looking at one's emotions under certain circumstances, but in others I'd say it's inappropriate such as what someone feels while watching a play. — Moliere

Reasonable passions are what decent, {ie English} people feel. The Continentals cannot control themselves, and the savages don't even try.

I think it goes like this : Given fear of death, fear of tigers and poisonous snakes is 'reasonable' in the sense that they are capable of causing death, whereas fear of mice is not. But as Hume famously didn't say, "you can't get an emotion from a fact". Fear of death is not reasonable, merely common. Lay on, Macduff, And damned be him that first cries “Hold! Enough!”

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone? :gasp: — Alkis Piskas

Because that would deprive you of the freedom to ignore my suggestion, just as Adam and Eve ignored god's command. Explaining the joke rather spoils it, but human psychology is what it is. I don't mind your comment at all, we're all human, it turns out, even God. :wink:

The real me escapes the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it does! All this is only a story! there's nothing real about it. But when you tell me about the real me and how it escapes - that's just a story too. So have you escaped the narrative, or are you still in a different narrative?

My thread, my rules; this is what dogma is, and this is my dogma
— unenlightened

:wink: That seems reasonable and I will defer to your judgement. If I don't like it, I can always go away. — Ludwig V

If you don't like it, you can appeal to the mods, whose dogma is final, subject to the terms and conditions of the service provider, that are subject to the various laws of the countries involved, subject to anyone giving enough of a damn to set about enforcement.

If men are not afraid to die,
It is of no avail to threaten them with death.

If men live in constant fear of dying,
And if breaking the law means that a man will be killed,
Who will dare to break the law?

There is always an official executioner.
If you try to take his place,
It is trying to be like a master carpenter and cutting wood.
If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter,
you will only hurt your hand. — Lao Tzu

I will identify you in a way which is other than the way that you identify yourself. By what principle do you say that self-identifying is what gives you identity rather than someone else identifying you? It wouldn't be right to say that they're both your proper identity, because then you'd have as many identities as there are people who know you. And it might seem correct that you know yourself better than anyone else knows you, but doesn't "identity" refer fundamentally to how others know you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well you have a problem because you are looking for a 'true' or a 'proper' identity. I don't have that problem, because for me, identities are marks on a map, or labels, not facts about the world.Identity is all talk. Now in a general way, we believe labels and maps and talk. Ready meals have ingredients lists, but occasionally one finds a 'foreign body' in the pie. The label does not know. Sometimes the label knows that it does not know - 'may contain nuts'. Sometimes the label has official permission to be economical with the truth - peanut butter may contain a percentage of ground insects but doesn't tell you. Sometimes completely the wrong label gets put on by design or accident. But whatever it says, don't eat the label, and have a look and a sniff at the contents too.

It simply is the case that people label each other all the time; even here on TPF, some people think I'm a very stable genius, whereas I think I'm absolutely innocent. Even the Deep Mods cannot agree, which is why I'm still here. Or is this all fake news? Will the real Slim unenlightened please stand up?

As my previous thread seemed to arrive at, the story (label, map) of the powerful is the one that tends to be imposed on everyone as dogma. If Hitler says you are Jewish scum, it doesn't matter what you or your granny think, or what the truth of matter is, off to the extermination camp you go.

But to be fair, Ronald Reagan had been involved in politics for sometime and was Governor of California and had become educated by the time he ran for President. — GRWelsh

Yes, sure; but who was elected, the governor or the cowboy?

I get that things have gone from cowboys and indians to nightmare on Elm street, with Nixon as the honest crook somewhere in the middle. I guess it's arbitrary in a way to pick a moment to begin the story of 'how it came to this pass'. But politics as pure media performance with no relation to reality is where we're at, and Reagan was the first. It's not personal to him as politician, it's the obvious fact that his fame was as a fantasy, and that was what won the votes. It's the voters that had lost touch with reality, rather than Reagan himself.

What we are left with is two incompatible principles which are both equally essential to identity. These are the being of the person, what one is, and this is a principle of sameness for us all, and also the particular acts which makes each of us different, and this is the principle of difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is much more interesting to me, because it is a conflict that people, especially teenagers go through, and some have more trouble than others. If my brother likes blue, I have to like red, just to differentiate myself. If my parents like jazz, I have to like punk, but at the same time as I seek uniqueness, I seek fellowship, and we are family, or class or nation, or whatever.

Physically, there is no problem, because one has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, and a unique history, but also we are all one species. But it is in our constructed relationship with ourself and with others that difficulties arise - in the idea I have of me, and the idea I have of you, and the idea I have of the idea you have of me, and the idea I have of the idea you have of yourself, and vice versa, and how we both perform and communicate and negotiate these ideas. And notice that all these ideas include value judgements - that unenlightened - too clever for his boots, but at least he's not as confused as [censored].

The problem I have with your perspective, is where does the required act of identifying fit into this? Why do you think that having an "identity" which is what makes each of us different, yet also the same in some way, requires a special act called "identifying"? When we move to identify, don't we assume that the person being identified already has an identity, or else the act of identifying would prove fruitless? When we "identify" aren't we trying to determine something which is already there, rather than create something which could be completely imaginary and fictitious? — Metaphysician Undercover

The act is not special to us, it's what we are always doing in thought, such that it creates a centre of thought as the self that thinks. Everyone thinks they are somebody special, and also that they are one of the people.

One names one's child to give it an identity and the name is written in a special register, and a certificate awarded, thus psychology becomes bureaucracy. You have to know your name, sign your name, identify with your name, respond to your name being called. Without your name you would be no less a person, except that socially you would be nothing, a non-person, of no (bank) account, stateless, etc etc. When someone steals your identity, they do not steal you, but socially they act as you, and take over your social life.

So it is clear that what I think I am is my personal identity, and what society thinks I am is my social identity, and these do not always align, and the physical being that I am is heavily influenced from without and within by these ideas that I have and other people have.

The importance of family name tends to be overlooked by those for whom it is unproblematic, but ancestry tracing is big business, and typically, foundlings have a strong feeling of something missing in not having that family history and connection to known ancestors. Region, tribe, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, all serve to locate a person in a social network, and to a great extent it is the network not the individual that forms the identity. But these things are all social constructs - words made flesh.

But property is also made flesh by identification - scratch my car and you have wounded my body. Thus it becomes clear that identity is everything - me in my world.

Now, bracket off all the above, and call it a story, (or a meta story) of how we humans come to be what we are and do what we do. And now you want to argue that it must be otherwise because this and this of evidence and logic. So that then is your meta-story, where identity is fixed and real - or perhaps not quite that - you tell your story. And so we can disagree about our stories and our meta-stories and our identities. But in the main, things are a matter of culture, and not physics.

Looking from the outside, I'd say the psychological rot set in when the first cowboy actor, Reagan, got elected. It's been government by fantasy ever since.

I've had no complaints - is your story obscene or antisocial or something?

However, there is another step yet to be taken, and that is the identity which one has, inherently, simply by having existence, without any act of identifying required by anybody. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, i understand what you are saying, but I think you are conflating what one is and what one identifies oneself to be - being with idea of being, territory with map. one's idea of oneself can be realistic or unrealistic, but never real.

This is a new sort of McCarthyism and I’m glad I’m not on your side. — NOS4A2

Estimating the number of victims of McCarthy is difficult. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.

Google.

Yes, one man's indictment is the same as hundreds imprisoned and thousands losing their jobs. Trump's ego is just that big.

Boris is incredibly decent the way Donald is incredibly innocent.

But don't take my word for it, listen to his colleagues:

The question which the house asked the committee is whether the house had been misled by Mr Johnson and, if so, whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It is for the house to decide whether it agrees with the committee. The house as a whole makes that decision. Motions arising from reports from this committee are debatable and amendable. The committee had provisionally concluded that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the house and should be sanctioned for it by being suspended for a period that would trigger the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In light of Mr Johnson’s conduct in committing a further contempt on 9 June 2023, the committee now considers that if Mr Johnson were still a member he should be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
a) Deliberately misleading the house.
b) Deliberately misleading the committee.
c) Breaching confidence.
d) Impugning the committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the house.
e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee.
We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former member’s pass.

Privileges committee.

truth as the only and unquestionable value. — unenlightened

It is important to be aware that every rule can (and mostly likely will, eventually) encounter circumstances in which the appropriate application may be unclear or disputed. — Ludwig V

Hence one has recourse to dogma: "The referee's decision is final." Or the Supreme Court's, or the Central Committee's, or whatever.

Right, even when wrong — unquestionable.

We can debate the meaning of any word, but only by not debating the meaning of the words we use to debate it. Thus even a debate on the meaning of dogma requires a dogmatic understanding of 'meaning', 'debate' etc. One might say that dogma is the (perhaps temporary) still, fixed point of the mind.

My thread, my rules; this is what dogma is, and this is my dogma. :rofl:

Leaders should be like figureheads on the ship of state, out in front, catching all the weather and doing and saying nothing, while the power and steering happens at the stern. Figureheads that like to think they're in charge can only send the ship backwards.

Is there something wrong with being coercive and unrealistic?

I've always been completely sceptical of astrology – until now. :joke:

Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago?
— universeness

Because that might be unconstitutional. — Michael

And it would encourage the (ab)use of the law to bar candidates. I imagine the thinking is that if 'the people' would ever elect a convicted criminal as president, that would constitute proof that the law itself is at fault and at odds with the will of the people.

It would be so gratifying to see him go to jail, — frank

I would be adequately gratified merely by his exit from my in-box. To be replaced by something more boringly acceptable and mediocre. Where he festers is of no consequence to me as long at is no longer in my consciousness. A luxury retirement home would be a very small price to pay as long as it had no outgoing internet.

Is our civilization unbalanced? — 0 thru 9

And if so, is it towards yin or Yang? This answer needs to be obvious, and I think it is obvious — that there is and excess of yang in the culture; this is resulting in a climate rebalancing — too much heat, too many fires, too much creative energy leads to more water, sea level rise, and eventually the drowning of coastal cities.

The word “civilization” relates to the Latin word “civitas” or “city.” This is why the most basic definition of the word “civilization” is “a society made up of cities.”

Google.

And the culture has difficulty coping because it responds with male energy to "do something about it" instead of bringing the passivity of doing less to bear.

Too much talking, not enough listening, too much creating, not enough sustaining, too much sun, not enough shade. too much artificial light, not enough darkness. Too much movement, not enough stillness, too much individual, not enough community.

Farewell @Andrew4Handel A troubled soul. A decent chap most of the time I found, but became a broken record on the one issue.

Thats just what I mean by identity; that which comes into being by the process of identification. You do understand that this thread is about psychology, not physics? "What is there" is what is thought.

Hence I do not argue; you can think what you like.

What evidence do you have for this? New stories pop up in the strangest of places... — Changeling

None. It's a story; it resonates with you, or it doesn't. Make a new story if you like; tell it in a thread; see what odd questions people ask you.

So when we apprehend the fact that animals, plants, and other things have "an identity" just as much so as the human being has an identity, we see that the self-narrative is not the identity of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Anything is whatever it is, but to have an identity is not merely to be what one is, which any rock can manage., but to identify oneself as being some particular thing. This is what plants and other animals do not seem to do, by and large. At least that is my story, you may prefer your story.

Consider what you said about how the narrator is not a part of the narrative. The true self is the narrator, , the self in the narrative is the illusionary self. When the narrative ends, so ends the narrative self, but the true self, as the narrator remains. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is a non-narrating narrator of a self-narrative not a straightforward contradiction? Your suggestion goes against anything i have read of spirituality anyway, so I will not go there myself. I think your contrivance here just continues the narrative and does not end it, just adding an extra identification "true".

If memory and anticipation are ‘now’ for an animal, this is just as true for a human being. — Joshs

I disagree. The narrative is a retelling of what was present is present and will be present, that is available at any moment. there is nothing whatsoever in the animal that corresponds to —

a central principle of time consciousness in phenomenology. If memory and anticipation are ‘now’ for an animal, this is just as true for a human being. — Joshs

That is a narrative. and my thesis is that identity is narrative and that is where we live, not an extended present. "I was born at an early age..."

I don't recommend trying too hard to understand unenlightened on the topic of enlightenment. It's all projection and imagination on my part. Losing illusion and finding reality are kind of the same thing; from the pov of the self though, it is losing everything, so that's the aspect I have to face. Likewise if I have completed a story, I can put it aside and begin to live, but again, from here it is a completion, and an ending that I face.

To speak of what lies beyond the ending as a new beginning would be I think to imagine self continuing beyond its own end. * mumbles something about squeezing camels through the eye of a needle*

My fault entirely. Thank you for querying it.

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.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Before enlightenment chop wood and post on philosophy forums; after enlightenment chop wood and post on philosophy forums.

I like unenlightened's first sentence. I don't understand the second.

dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps it is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'.
— Moliere

Dogma includes "certainty", in the psychological sense. But psychological certainty is a trap, precisely because it leads to dogma and there's nothing like power for fostering certainty beyond what's reasonable. — Ludwig V

Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.
This...

the assumption seems to be that dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps it is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'./quote]

...I now see is badly phrased and confusing. Let me remove the ambiguous "it" and replace it thus:

The assumption seems to be that dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps intolerance is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'.

This hopefully aligns fairly well with your"...there's nothing like power for fostering certainty beyond what's reasonable." — unenlightened

I see your point, but the Bodhidharma clearly knows how to talk, and has not become innocent like the beasts, And likewise Lao Tzu and Chiang Tzu.

The emptiness of consciousness is the cessation of identification as the narrative self, not the forgetting of self and language and everything that characterises Alzheimers. I think it is appropriate to say that the transcendence is a moving forward not a return, certainly not a return to a prelinguistic awareness. But I'll give you the definitive answer when enlightenment is attained. :flower:

And all those people spoke exactly of the return of the innocence of not knowing. — TheMadMan

You have my attention. A couple of quotes would be helpful.

Ah, the invincible optimism of the New World. If you're up shit creek without a paddle, plant roses.

The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. — Hanover

I agree your carbon footprint isn't the issue, it was more your lack of support I was lamenting. That dam bursting in perhaps a century or so is going to raise sea levels and flood some quite large villages.

There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20some%20uncertainty,coastal%20city%20on%20the%20planet.

That's a lot of adapting to do, before any consideration of the actual temperature and climate changes. Is anyone quickly preparing for that? Or slowly?

As China’s energy transition gathers pace through the expansion of its renewable energy sources – both wind and solar, authorities are faced with the challenge of storing away the surpluses to integrate their supplies into the country’s gigantic power system and ensure grid stability. — Hanover's cited source

We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you.

Thanks! every thread needs musical soundtrack. That'll do nicely!

I am unclear how comparing judgment becomes morality. — Tom Storm

I am a bit unclear myself, and thank you for your perceptive comments and questions. Here is something one can hear from time to time on the streets:

"Be good for Mummy." We know what this means; stop jumping in the puddles, putting sweets in the trolley, commenting loudly on that man with no legs, 'look, Mummy he's got no legs, why hasn't he got any legs?' and hold hands while we cross the road.

We learn not to do what we want to do in the moment, but to do what Mummy wants, because we are dependent on Mummy. That is, not to be what we are - that is bad - but to be good, which is what mummy wants us to be. Self-denial is born as 'the good', and self-indulgence as 'the bad'. and this judgement that is the (M)other's judgement is internalised as part of one's identity.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis.

1 In the beginning Mummy created the home and the child.
2 The child was without self, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Mummy was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then Mummy said, “Be what i say”; and the child was what she said.
4 And Mummy saw the child being what she said, that it was good; and Mummy divided the child from himself.
5 Mummy called the repressed child 'Being good, and the spontaneous child She called Being naughty. So the evening and the morning were the first day of the moralising child.

Some folk may find an echo here and there of this:

“Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope,tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss.What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I find this really annoying, please never mention it.

I'm not sure what this story is about. Can you dumb it down? (I did read your comments above) — Tom Storm

Sure. Who are you?

... someone who has not privileged philosophy and is a fairly crude thinker, — Tom Storm

I'm sure you could say a lot more, but you have said something very similar before, and I guess it is a fairly honest summary of how you identify yourself in relation to the other folk on this site, who in general have more so privileged philosophy and are more subtle thinkers.

This is an idea you have of yourself that you identify with, and claim as your self, in relation to some meaningful others. There must be many other relations, familial, professional, neighbourly, social, from which you derive all sorts of other characterisations — the joker of the family, the only one in the office who actually does anything, the fight defuser at the bar, the guy who always came top in metalwork at school. And the sum of these various ideas is your 'narrative identity'. and all your experiences are the experiences of that identity, and your response are the responses of that identity, which develops through time with experience. And this self is always comparative and thereby judgemental - I am smarter than a brick and faster than a snail, but not as beautiful as a sunset.

A non-linguistic animal cannot form a narrative identity; they learn things - not to eat the yellow snow, but they never form the identity "I don't like yellow snow", they just avoid it when they see it. So they do not live in time, psychologically. they are always just here and now, with whatever they know, which is nothing of themselves.

And the crux of all this as you have correctly identified, you crude thinker, you, is that I propose a state of enlightenment, where the self is 'transcended' and one again lives without time and without the comparing judgement that becomes morality, but retaining the glorious creative potential of language. This is the fulfilment of human potential, and the end of the narrative self that otherwise has to end in mere death.

Wants and desires are the product of a being looking forward in time, toward the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this, but what can one possibly want that one has not experienced in the past? Only unnameable novelty. But we call that emotion boredom, not desire. Desire as a thought is always for 'more'.