Interesting, and I do like songs so much. So, do you see the idea of self as being a juxtaposition of past, present and even the future? I think that what you are saying certainly throws most conventional understandings of self upside down. I am certainly not opposed to this, and I am glad for any further ideas on this, because I am looking towards the most critical scrutiny of the very idea of self.

I think that the question of whether an emotionless human being would still be human is an interesting question. It is interconnected with that of what it means to be human? We live in a life of the physical and ideas, and, perhaps emotions form the middle ground in this. I do believe that your emphasis on reason is important, because emotions often are based on the lower aspects of human nature. But, if we were cut off from the emotions entirely, we may become unbalanced in seeing everything in logical terms, which may leave us floundering as beings of mind, body and spirit. However, I am aware that all of these categories are arbitrary, but I do believe that emotions are are a useful aspect of guidance.

I agree that part of the problem is how we identify aspects of the self, including the fragile. But, so much comes down to how we identify and think about the self, and I am aware that many don't stop and see the self as fragile at all. I think that it is a precarious concept, psychologically and philosophically. But, many people take it for granted, for better or worse. I wonder how much different it makes, whether we analyse it or not. How much of it is an aspect of life which is behind the scenes of experience or can be brought to the forefront. I am inclined to believe that it an important aspect of the examined life, but it may be that many prefer to remain blind.

You say that, 'Nothing matters much and things don't matter at all'. I am in complete disagreement with you here, believing that everything matters so much, on a personal, social and cosmic scale. I awake daily, with the conundrum of juggling all of these for a living understanding of life. As far as knowledge goes, I wish to keep up to date and attuned to the latest developments and best ways of understanding everything.

I think that the idea of the big bang makes sense and can probably be seen as the most coherent concept of how life in the universe took place, but, even then, it does seem that so much of the whys of evolution remain unanswered.

I think that you raise an interesting question, but it does involve the underlying question of what we mean by 'society'? We exist as individuals within social groups, but there are so many individuals and 'others', within countries and beyond, and, so, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of society. It seems a bit of an abstract concept.

Nevertheless, I think that the abstract aspect of 'society' may be where the problem lies, and may be part of the reason why it may be collapsing. That is, because in seeing everything in terms of a wider notion of social meaning, the personal aspect may become lost. I think that most of us struggle with identity if it becomes too abstract, and remote from an actual community. The feeling of being lost in a sea of abstractions may be underlying factor within any collapse of' 'society'.

I think that we are often left with 'ignorance' and, perhaps, even Wittgenstein's notion of 'uncertainty' glosses over this, or frames the problem with some philosophical glamour or eloquence. I have just been reading various replies in the thread, including the idea of whether the 'big bang' really happened, and, it throws me right back to where I started, with the problemaric nature of the mysterious nature of existence.

The question of whether the self is linear or not is a good question really. Definitely, historical developments are important but I see your point about a melody not being fully realized until the end of the song. The developmental aspect of self seems to me to be about how we integrate our latest experiences.

I know that when I have upsetting experience, which are usually based in social life, they throw me into turmoil. They feel 'raw' and it takes a while before I achieve a sense of equilibrium again. Integrating them takes time and painful experiences often become so different at a much later stage, when they have been placed in the context of the long term memory and perspective of self. But, integrating them, does draw upon core self, which goes so far back into the distant past. So, in the larger scheme of self, past and present collide, but this process itself is part of the ongoing development of the underlying self, as a structure of meaning and thinking.

Kierkergaard's understanding of the self as 'continual movement' sounds interesting. I have to admit that I have read hardly any of his writings. But, I have a few books by him, which I downloaded, so, perhaps, I should read them in the near future, and I may be able to discuss his ideas further with you, at some point.

I think that I do remember reading Jung's view that the self is fully realised in death and finding it a bit puzzling really. It is certainly not the way we accustomed to thinking about death in the Western world and I think that such an approach is probably why a lot of people regard Jung as a mystic. I think that he was a bit ambiguous on the issue of life after death, but hinted at it more in his later writings, especially his autobiographical, ' Memories, Dreams and Reflections.'

I find the idea of the self being realised fully in death as being a little odd, I have to admit. What I would be able to accept more, is that people may have more knowledge of the self as they approach death, in terms of reflection. I often think that the extent which we know ourselves is often in retrospect, because we don't always know who we are fully until we are placed in specific circumstances., That is because these may stretch us beyond the predictable, and may even change our innermost sense of self

The idea of 'keeping up to date' is interesting in regard to philosophy because in many ways it deals with the eternal questions. However, I am aware that you frame what you are saying in the context of the arts and culture. In this sense, I believe that keeping up to date probably involves being as aware of what is going on in the world as far as possible, including trends of political and scientific thought as well as the arts. But, while what I am saying may seem obvious, I think that getting the widest possible knowledge is easy, even with the internet, because there is simply so much to know about, and so much is changing constantly.

As far as reading goes, I remember when I was on an academic course, not related to a philosophy, being told that all references should be to books written in the last 5 years, unless they were classic texts. I am not sure how this would apply to philosophy, or, perhaps there are simply more classic texts. I do like to try to read some newish books, but definitely read many which go back to the last century. But, apart from looking at this site and articles on the internet, for about the last 6 months, I have been reading 'Philosophy Now'. I feel that has a fair range of recent articles and reviews of new books. I also go into bookshops and look at new books, browsing far more than the ones which I buy.

I think that your point in one of your pictures, 'We can't see awareness be we are it' is interesting. It may be the universal blindspot. I wonder how this relates to looking in the mirror, because we are able to look at ourselves, from the perspective and others, although the mirror itself gives a reverse image. But, to see our mirror image or photograph, or even hear a recording of our own voice is a perspective of self from the outside, which is an alternative addition to the perspective of awareness from the subjective viewpoint alone.

I think that the question of why particular things and selves assemble themselves in the particular unique way is one which can become overlooked. Generally, I think that it probably involves a complex mixture of nature vs nurture, but I do believe that as selves we have more of conscious choice in choosing how and what to select in the assembling of our lives.

I am sure that language plays a clear role in this and the whole nature of self-consciousness entails language. It gives us the framework for conceptualizing, constructing identity and the framework of our specific consciousness, which leads to the specifically human engagement with other beings and the environment.

I think that your distinction between philosophy asking, 'What it is?'and how we can know and psychology focusing upon how this 'affects us' is useful. Psychology and philosophy are separate as disciplines now, but they still overlap so much, and I have been trying to ask about the nature of the self as a philosophy question. But, it is hard to distinguish the psychology and philosophy can this entirely, but I do believe that the philosophy is about the basic explanations, but, of course, we are selves, or minds, asking the questions.

One can even ask to what extent is the idea of self and mind different. That could involve viewing the self as being embodied. However, we are left with another question: what is mind exactly? Most philosophers don't view mind as a category of disembodied 'mind' in an idealist way. But, I think that philosophy is more about the thinking about the concepts, such as how self is figured out, in relation to other ideas, such as mind and body.

I think that the idea of considering what the self is NOT is important. It probably begins when the child first realises separation from mother and other people. But, of course, how we see other minds is important because most people don't end up coming up as taking a soliptist view. We think about oneself in relation to other selves.

But, I think that when we think about what the self is or isn't, apart from the role of embodiment, it involves being aware of invisible aspects of existence. In this, while we step back and are aware of being in the world, connected to others, there are certain aspects of self, which incorporate will, imagination and conscience. So, the idea of self is a whole spectrum of identity, rather than a single aspect, and is almost a universe within.

It is indeed interesting to see that Hume keeps referring to himself, despite him trying to suggest that the idea of self is illusory. I think that it is extremely difficult to think outside of it framework of self because it is the basis from which we observe everything else.

I have seen a few people with dissociative states of consciousness in which the person has what appears to be multiple personalities. It does appear to be so unusual, although I am familiar with the idea of sub personalities, and this is not even clinical. I think that these can be like inner characters or archetypes, but the individual does not identify with them litrerally, but draw upon them as fantasy figures, or even use them as a basis for creativity. But, it does show that the self is not always in charge, and many forms of breakdown do show aspects of ego consciousness and the fragility of the self for some individuals.

I am glad that you appreciated the way in which the concept of self is extremely fuzzy. After I had just written the thread, I began to worry that people may think that I was asking a stupid question, but I do struggle around thinking that the idea, and this goes as far as my thinking is myself, as well as the others with whom I interact.

I would imagine that many Buddhists view the self differently from one another. What you lead me to think about is how I must be careful of making generalisations in this complex area. I am sure that this applies to people in the Christian tradition and many other religions, as well as people in a secular context. Based on my own experience, I would say that my own thinking about self changes. I think that the notion of self is complex and not that clear at all, which is why I wrote a thread on the topic.

Yes, I have to admit that the basics of ID, as indicated are mostly likely more essential to our sense of self than I initially credited them. In particular, aspects of identity, such as gender, race, sexual orientation are vital to our understanding of who we are. We are bound up with other social beings and do define ourselves in such ways, even when we are alone at home . It probably goes very deep as well, to being about our bodies and whether we are happy with them or not. For example, if a person feels ugly it can have a crippling effect on self esteem. Similarly, a person's idea of bodily self is at the core of eating disorders and some other disorders. I do acknowledge that social identity and, the body are central to viewing the self. We are in mere fragmented selves, living in tunnel vision.

I think that your discussion of the idea of the tension which the idea of an immortal soul vs the idea of lack of a self in Buddhism. It is an area of conflict which I have thought about. However, I don't believe that it is absolute because the idea of rebirth could still work with an idea of mind as being immanent, like in the thought of Gregory Bateson in, 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind'. However, definitely the idea of self, or as soul, in dualism definitely is in opposition to the Buddhist emphasis on no self. For me, it mainly shows how these matters have been thought about for a very long time.

Another great poem, and picture. I thank you for making the thread so lively and decorative.

I think that your idea of self as being an aspect of self organisation does make a lot of sense to me, although if someone had suggested it to me about 2 or 3 years ago, I would have found the idea as being rather absurd. I grew up in a Catholic background and had a strong belief in the soul. However, I have questioned my initial beliefs, including the idea of a soul in connection to views about consciousness, especially since using this site.

Currently, I do see us as living systems, and see self and consciousness in connection with this, although I still remain open to Jung's ideas on the collective unconscious, and to Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of memory inherent in nature, in the context of morphic resonance. But, it think that we do develop systems of information, as evident in memories and this is inherent in our sense of identity and self.

When I think about my own development of self and identity, it is bound up with significant memories, like I can remember clearly so much of my own experiences going back to when I was at primary school and, a lot of memories before that. It does make me wonder what happens to the sense of memories in people who have dementia. I have done some work with people who have dementia, and did find that they respond so well to listening to music from previous eras, and it could be that the songs enable them to gain more connections with aspects of their fragmenting selves.

Actually, I am almost still in bed today. I had a lot of trouble sleeping last night, so I am lacking in action today, but plan to go out exploring tomorrow. I often have one day in and one day out and I spend so much time exploring the corners of music and bookshops. I often feel that the books or CDs I find are aspects of myself, but I would rather be creating rather than just consuming. I would like to do art, but I need to buy a table first.

I do like to go out and spend time with others but have not really done much of this since lockdown, especially as I had to move. I am wishing to go out and find more activities but life has not gone back to normal at all really here. I am just hoping that we don't have any further lockdowns or else I would really become an exploding self.

I do agree that we can't hide our 'true' self all of the time because that would be about an inauthentic form of existence, and I think that it is probably dangerous to have to pretend. It may be a source of people becoming unwell mentally, or even physically because many physical aspects of health have a psychosomatic basis or origin. I think that the truth of the matter is that people have differing degrees of outlet for expressing certain sides of themselves. I certainly know which friends I can share different aspects of myself more than others. I think that most friendships or relationships probably work or fail according to this.

But, definitely the subjective aspect of self, as lens as well as the objective or intersubjective is what we know of being, as a self. I think that some people people probably find it hard to be alone, for the reason that they wish to block out this subjective encounter, or even block this out with distractions, ranging from light tv and media entertainment, shopping and addictions. The self, and its exploration may be in itself a dangerous territory, and we may be back again with the existential thoughts of Sartre and Camus.

I am inclined to think that Hume may have arrived at a conclusion about no self independently. However, I admit that I find the Buddhist idea of there being no mind to be very interesting indeed. I see it as being interconnected with the idea of impermanence. I believe that many people take the idea of self for granted, but when one stops and thinks about it the notion is much more complicated.

I think that Jung takes a much broader perspective on the self than many psychologists and philosophers. That is through seeing the symbolic nature of experience, including his insights on alchemy, he challenges the view of the self which sees it simply arising in the individual brain. He sees the individual self as being interconnected with the idea of the collective unconscious. In this sense, he is perceiving the idea of the self as being linked to a source beyond the individual's own consciousness. I am aware that this idea may not be accepted by many current philosophers but it think that it may fit more with Leibniz's ideas of monads, or with Hegel's philosophy of mind.

I think that your response is interesting because it moves from Hume's idea of the human being as 'a bundle of experiences' to the question of free will, which is interlinked to the nature of the self. The view which you are stating has a basis in the perspective of B F Skinner, who regarded the sense of self and free will as illusory, as expressed in his book, 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'

I personally don't agree with Skinner because I think that he ignores the human ability for self reflection, which involves being able to gain distance From one's basic impulses. But, I can see that the argument he presents is fairly strong. I know that many philosophers go even further and regard consciousness itself as an illusion.

I think that your post about 'Madfool' in relation to others is interesting. But, what I do wonder about here is whether you are speaking about the persona rather than the self. We all may have slightly different aspects of ourselves which we present in different life situations and, presumably, you are not even seen as Madfool in every part of your life.

Generally, I think that we are social actors and show different parts of ourselves in different situations. I think we vary according to how we differ according to different roles which are adopting. But, nevertheless, my understanding of the self is that it is behind the scenes rather than being traced to what may be seen as 'the front' which we may present to others.

In addition, I think that as a colloquial term, the idea of the self is often about basic facts, and this is different from the experience of self. I remember shortly after leaving school, I was doing an exercise on a course in which we were asked to write about 'yourself'. The main way I interpreted this was to write about my 'self' in terms of my own mental states of consciousness. However, we had to read it out to the group and everyone else wrote about the factual aspects of their lives. I felt a bit foolish really, because I had interpreted the task of writing about self in an entirely different way from everybody else in the group. But, in such a colloquial way, self is about the facts, and this sense of self is different from the sense of self as a mental or philosophical concept.

What I think is a problem with some of this thread is that it is ignoring the position of the person who created the thread discussion speaking about their own dysphoria. Also, in the 'about' section the person is saying that they are 17 years old, and if this is true, then it may be an extremely difficult time. Of course, this is a philosophy forum and not a psychology self-help resource, but at the same time, I think that some sensitivity is important here and I am just hoping that Bradaction has not set him/herself up to receive a garbage can of opinions about transgender issues.

Generally, I am trying to think about the idea of self as a philosophical rather than psychological problem, and I can see why Hume questions the existence of self. Even though I came up with some kind of idea of what it may consist of, in the post which I wrote previous to this one, I do still have some reservations about how it stands. This is because it is not completely cohesive as a structure, or it has some kind of fluidity.

However, working on the assumption that each of us has some underlying centre, which we call the self, definitely was addressed by Freud and the Jung. I think what is essential to both thinkers is an emphasis on aspects of the self being conscious and other parts being subconscious. They work from the assumption that there is more to the self than one is aware of being at any given moment in time. Personally, I would agree with this basic approach because the subconscious, and I think that most philosophers recognize the subconscious as an important aspect of consciousness.

I agree with you that it is experience itself which is at the core of the self. It is as if we are able to step back from memories, and social relationships, and become aware of a cohesive centre within. This centre remains with us throughout life, as the underlying basis of identity and ability to sift shift information and experience wishes and make choices.

I am just about to log out, but I just looked at your comment and I am wondering about the question of memory and identity. I think that it is an important part of identity, but I think that it goes beyond this, especially in the philosophical basis rather than psychological aspects of identity. I think that we define ourselves as human individuals on the basis of past history, but who we are in terms of ego identity and connection with reality is far more complex.

I am glad that you have raised the issue of the Buddhist notion of self, because it was in the back of my mind when I wrote this thread question.

I am about to log out for tonight as its really late, and unsure how important my question is as a philosophical issue, worthy of fuller consideration. But, I will look at any further replies in the morning.

I have already said that I am not trying to come up with a clear psychology definition. I am raising the idea of self for philosophical consideration for anyone who is interested.

I think that 'self' in schizophrenia is extremely interesting, including Laing's idea of the divided self. It points to the way in which self hinges on a fabric of social meanings and we are subjects. The sense of self and cohesion may be torn asunder by conflicting messages, especially those in socialisation and families.

I think that your post raises the important point that people can be misgendered even if they are not gender dysphoric or transgender at all. We live in a world in which people are perceived in gender categories and mistakes will occur. I have a gender dysphoric friend who used to get into arguments if they were not perceived in the chosen gender, but the truth of the matter is that we are all referred to as he or she on the basis of appearance most of the time, and this is more a matter of convenience rather than on any basis of philosophies about gender choice. But, in some cases, people are requesting that this framework is cast aside entirely. Some people find this easier than others.

I think that you are most probably right and that self is most probably encoded in each cell, because I am certainly not trying to argue that self is an elusive concept. However, I do believe that some thinkers have seen it in that way in the past, but may be getting to the point where self is not seen in connection with a dualistic model. But, even now, it may still be seen in that framework if the self is seen purely in biological terms.

I do agree with you, and, really, I am just trying to think about the way in which self is not simply an aspect of psychology, but a philosophy construct as well. It is involved in philosophy discussions about identity and lies behind many other aspects of discussion. So, I am really raising it as an area for thinking about in connection with philosophical ideas about being a person, including the dichotomy of body and mind.

I think that the question 'who am I?' is indeed central to psychology and philosophy, but I do believe that it can be asked on many levels. It may appear to be a superficial question of identity, but I also believe that it goes much deeper. It involves questions about ego identity, and what lies behind the surface. How do we differentiate ourselves as individuals?

But, surely, a regular ID card will only be about identifying the basics, such as name, and date of birth and, and has little to do with identity and the philosophical aspects of identity.

You may say what's the fuss about, but I would be interested to know how you see the idea of the self. It may be seen as a psychological idea, but it does figure as an aspect of philosophy too.