It makes it sound as if the existentiali prospects of a disembodied fictitious self may make life in the real world seem so incredibly dull. I am actually wishing to get back to real life and having a life as an embodied self, but perhaps, the alternative reality of the internet and cyberspace will be too alluring. We will all sit alone, fixated on our devices with the ability to shapeshift a sense of self at the flick and tapping of digits.

I don't know if you have chosen the title of your link to an earlier aspect of this thread intentionally .' Be Here Now' is an album by Oasis.I think that it rocks with the mysteries of existence, with retro comparisons to The Beatles and John Lennon. Perhaps the big questions cannot be answered by philosophy alone and the creative artists contribute in this together, alongside the philosophers.

One aspect which I wonder about this, is to what extent are people creating identities on social media because the scope for expressing in daily life is so restrictive. I think that have become locked into a mixture of institutions and individuals floundering socially. I probably would not have joined a forum at all if it had not been due to the pandemic and lockdowns.

As it is, I think that we are in an extremely upside down world, with a mixture of pros and cons and, the question is where is humanity going to end up, including our plights as individual selves struggling to find meaning and a place within it all? I think that the last 18 months, with the pandemic and lockdowns, have seen a speeding up of so many processes which had been beginning already. At this stage, it is hard to know what will happen and how life for any of us will be in, say, five years time.

I know that you have queried engaging with me on my many threads, but I think that our differing angles are so interesting. You are an highly valued member of the forum but write in response to others' threads. On the other hand, I write threads with complex questions, and I struggle my way through reading and thinking about replying. I often think how interesting it would be to see threads you might think of. But, I am not thinking that you should necessarily do so, because you are doing well anyway. I may need to slow down, but I love creating threads.

I just think that it shows how different we are as individuals. Fortunately, the forum allows for our individual expression of self and I can't help but laugh at how it would be if everyone created as many threads as I have done. The front page would be changing constantly, and it would really be a Tower of Babel of so many threads.

I think that your point, 'Oneself is what each of us is, but yourself is not no one else can be,' is extremely important in our times. We have seen individualism but I think that we are now in a time in which the individual is viwed as being so insignificant. But, each of us is unique and needs to be valued, even in the digital, information age. There is the whole focus upon the needi to assert oneself, as many psychology experts emphasize, but, there is a contrasting ethos to current life, which seeks to dehumanise or crush the individual self, and I think that we have to be wary of this.

I didn't realise just how many threads I had created, when the truth of the matter is I often struggle with writer's block. I probably need to slow down a bit and I certainly don't believe that sheer quantity of writing is important. Sometimes, thought before speaking or writing is important. I do still wish to write threads, but I see them as prompts for others to think about, rather than just as platforms for my own ideas.

On the subject of writing, Jack Heffron, in' The Writer's Idea Book', suggested that writing,
'is a means of carving order from chaos, of challenging beliefs and assumptions, of facing the world with eyes and heart wide open. Through writing, we declare a personal identity amid faceless anonymity'. So, it may be that the process of writing, including our expression of ideas on this site, is a central aspect of the realisation of the self.

Your reply is very interesting, in tracing the way in which the idea of self has in itself gone through many identity changes in itself. Yes, the ancient people often thought of it as the soul. In particular, Plato spoke of the daimon, in speaking of the idea of the soul in relation to the divine. How different the concept of the daimon is to most contemporary thinking about the self.

Unfortunately, I am not writing a book but I do love writing which is probably why I write so many threads. Perhaps, I will write one oneday. But, I think that I have probably created a lot of threads in a short time, and it is actually a lot of work trying to write so many replies. So, I probably do need a bit of a break, and, of course, I wish to get involved in others' threads as well.

I think that your post is interesting because while we are talking about embodied selves in life, as we interact on this site we project ourselves in a disembodied way. It is true that some people disclose more than others and, personally, I feel that to disclose a certain amount gives the interaction gives some kind of human touch.

With regard to how I wrote about the idea of fearing doing 'badly' on the site, I will admit that this connects to my own fears of failure and rejection. When any of us come to the forum, we come with our own life history and underlying sense of self. I can trace my own feelings of potential rejection to when I was about 8 years old and after not seeing a group of friends for a few days, how they told me that they were forming a rock band, but that I could not be any part of it, and they kept taunting me over this. I felt so rejected, not that I thought that any of them, or myself, had any musical talents. But, the issue was about exclusion. That is an issue which I can share but I think that we all have weakspots.

A couple of months ago, I asked if ' reality is solid' and we can even ask if our own selves are solid? Hopefully, most of us are fairly solid, or stable, but I think that most of us have areas of weaknesses and strengths.

I think that your question, 'What power do you give TPF and its members to adversely affect you? ' is an interesting one. Personally, I think that it does affect me possibly more than it should, and that is probably because I spend a lot of time in my room by myself using it. It almost feels like reality television because it goes on night and day, with new threads popping up and heated, dramatic exchanges of ideas.

I also believe that you make an important point when you speak of how we listen to one another and have our own 'blindspots'. Even going beyond this forum, the idea of blindspots is not addressed within philosophy as it is in psychoanalysis, but, perhaps, it should be, because it may be an underlying aspect behind arguments and premises. It is interrelated to your point that on the forum, 'Judgements are made ... and sometimes wrong assumptions are made'. I definitely feel that often people write heated posts, quoting another, without exploring the issue fully with the other person. I think that there is a danger of conflating the other's position and the other person almost into a caricature. I think that there is more danger of doing this on a site like this in which we cannot see the other person, especially as the non verbal aspects of interaction are left out.

So, this is the reality of meeting as disembodied selves, and, of course, philosophy has traditionally often been in the form of books, but that does usually mean more direct human contact with others in the process of the creation of books. That may be less now when people can self publish online.

I think that your post is interesting but I think that it ignores the historical development of thinking, especially as it ends with saying that we usually go with cultural ideas rather than logic. What you are missing here is the way that the particular worldviews were dependent on specific answers to questions in the first place. Of course, it doesn't mean that those individuals were right in the first place. However, you may be right to say that instincts play a large role against logic, and frequently the debate is put in terms of rationality vs emotions.

But, was Socrates really corrupting youth by encouraging them to question? Also, your title, although may be intended as rhetorical, but at face value it suggests that he should have been put to death, which seems a problematic view. You suggest that the questions of 'how did life begin? 'what is our life for? and 'is there life after death?' are ones 'which cannot be 'answered in a definitive way'. I think that it is true, because they are indeed speculation. But, it probably doesn't stop people from thinking about them, so they may as well be discussed openly rather than privately. I admit that I have created threads on such questions, so, perhaps, it is time for me to be given the hemlock, but I say this with a sense of humour.

I definitely don't hold a view an emphasis upon rationality or greater consciousness which ignores other aspects. I think that balance is of key importance as suggested by Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World'. He points to the need for science, reason, intuition and imagination' being central, and believes that emotions are important. So, any idea which I have about rationality and self understanding would involve greater understanding of all the various aspects of the brain and human consciousness, rather than a lopsided development of the self.

I think that we have the capacity for rational and deliberate behaviour but it is just that many people don't get stretched enough. It is often only rare circumstances or experiences which push people to go beyond what Guirdjieff and Colin Wilson described as 'robot' consciousness. But, I do believe that gradually more people are becoming 'individuated' more fully, as Jung describes it. Maybe it is time for the philosophers and humanity to wake up to greater self knowledge and consciousness.

I am still reading this thread and my other one, but not paying full attention because my mum had a fall and had to go into hospital. However, I am glad that the the thread is still going because I think that the mystery of consciousness should not be dismissed too quickly.

I think that it is interesting to compare Hume and Jung's understanding of self, because Jung certainly didn't think that we are just 'a bundle of experiences'. The more I think about this issue in relation to the many varying responses on the this thread it seems to me that the idea of self is interrelated to the mind and body problem. I tend towards the view that mind is dependent on the body, but I think that the body can give rise to such a sense of evolving consciousness, including heightened states of self awareness.

I am not convinced that we are that unconscious and I think that we have the ability to develop as self conscious beings. In some ways, I think that the experience of suffering may often lead to a much more intense experience of self, as a waking up experience. Also, I think that we have a certain amount of choice about how we develop as individual selves, and it probably involves a certain amount of separation from the social group. We live in a society in which individualism is apparent and this probably gives rise to a stronger self consciousness, but it probably does mean that a certain amount of narcissism comes into the picture. However, I do believe that there is scope to go beyond this, with a view to greater creative freedom, especially through reflective awareness and consciousness.

Thanks for your links on self concept and self esteem. I think what is interesting in these is the cultural aspects of thinking about the self because I am sure that the whole way we think about the self is in a social context. So, while there are probably universal elements of experience of the subjective experience of self we live in a world of social meanings and values.

I think that the point about how self is thought about in relation to internet identity is especially interesting as well. I think that my own sense of self is affected by interaction on this forum in particular. When I feel that I am doing badly here I feel that my own self esteem is affected detrimentally, just as if it was happening at work. Similarly, when I feel that I have meaningful interactions on the site, I do feel validated as a human being, and I think that this definitely gave me a sense of self worth during the isolation of lockdowns.

I think that it varies how people understand the concept of self, within different psychology models and within the various systems of meditation. Also, I think that individuals vary in the way in which they think about the self. Some people probably operate on a more automatic basis than others, and it all depends on how much people stop and reflect on the processes. In some ways, psychology in Western society has probably made us more conscious of the self. Also, this is probably true of the focus of psychotherapy. But, I do think that the models of how we think about the self probably affect how we conceptualize the experience of self because it is an interpretative process.

I definitely agree that the self is a 'tricky notion.' It is experienced meaningfully through self awareness and in connections within interaction.

Your focus upon how this relates to various dimensions of awareness is a response which I find to be particularly interesting and, @Amity also speaks of the multidimensional aspects of the self. Several months ago, I remember discussing art with you in relation to dimensions. I do believe that the self is a construct observed and consolidated in these various dimensions. You may be right to say that the various aspects are consolidated in one dimensions above the experience.

I think that many people would question the idea of the self in terms of dimensions, because it seems rather abstract. However, my own intuitive experience suggests that it may happen in such a way. I certainly feel that I am moving into dimensions when processing experiences. Many models of psychology don't allow for such a viewpoint. However, some perspective of consciousness based on quantum physics and various thinkers in the transpersonal approach to psychology and philosophy do point to various levels of consciousness and, offer a much wider framework for understanding the self.

Even though I said that everything matters, I think that in many ways, the idea that nothing matters and everything matters is in many ways an essential paradox within life. It is possible to blow things up beyond all proportions or to reduce it all to insignificance. Generally, though, I think some of the most insignificant aspects of thoughts can open up channels of thinking if we pay attention to detail. Also, I think that we are affected by so much information on a subliminal level. This includes aspects of ideas which we only glance at briefly, including the news.

You have created further great poems. I particularly like your reflections on time,
'..there is no time, then, externally
And, internally everything happens,
In the boundless 'eternity' within.'
I think that the way eternity is inner experience rather than an simply as an outer aspect of existence can become overlooked easily.

I do come from the angle of seeing outside of the various social roles which we play in life. I came across this idea in social psychology, especially through reading, 'Games People Play, 'by Eric Berne, who looks at how a person is not identical to the various roles they adopt, including parent, lover, and to some extent, we adopt masks in most aspects of social life. I think that it would be possible for people to go too far in deliberating on the nature of how we are all playing 'games' in social life, but, on the other hand, the ability to be able to think beyond the various fronts and parts we play, and be able to distance oneself, is a way of being able to step back as a self. I do believe that many people are not really able to do or think about this at all really, and do see themselves as being identical with the various roles they play.

Surely, it would be going too far to say that nothing can be known, but simply that many aspects of life are rather uncertain. But, we are not just in a deep black void, and, if nothing else we know so much based upon our experiences, which are central to existence. What more can we ask for really?

Our experiences gives scope for imagination and speculation and, perhaps, waking up from the sleep of not knowing as much as we would like may not be preferable ultimately. It may be that if the answers all became apparent oneday it may become so disappointing, and our quest would dissipate. We might truly be stuck in a narrow tunnel, or rut, of restricted meaning, or even meaninglessness.

I am not sure how people rate it as being one of the best, but one of my own favourites is 'A History of Western Philosophy', by Bertrand Russell.

@180 Proof

Okay, I will look at the older posts.I think.that Neil Young is great anyway. He and others such as Dylan and Cohen may be the great philosophers of our time, even though seen a little bit differently. I also think that Bono of U2 is important, and I have just managed to get hold of the music of Bono's son, in the band, Inhaler. Perhaps, philosophy goes beyond books entirely and is an aspect of the ongoing process of creative exploration and thinking in life.

But, of course, you needn't engage in discussion with me. If anything, I have probably created so many thread topics and answering all of replies has left me rather exhausted. I will try to chill out a bit, especially before I create any new ones, for anyone who does wish to engage with me. But, perhaps, I just need some private reading time first.

I am not wishing to dismiss the ideas which you proposed in the first page of this thread, but I think that there may be so much more to be elaborated upon. I do believe that so much of self may be encoded in the biological basics of DNA, but do believe in the entire way in which this comes into play In the enfoldment of self is so much more complex.

I am not sure if I understand fully, but tensing of the self may be extremely important in our understanding. Perhaps, you could explain your own understanding in a bit more detail.

An interesting link, and I keep an open mind. I certainly don't wish to come to any premature conclusions. I come with a view to having any ideas which I am accustomed to being thrashed, and questioned.

I was just looking back at my thread and saw your idea of self delusion. I think that it is an important aspect of existence, and I am wondering how can we overcome this? We develop ideas to buffer up our sense of self, security and identity. But, so much is about defense mechanisms and I am left wondering what it means to step outside of these entirely. We have our identity in relation to social structures and meanings, but as thinking beings I am left wondering about the whole process and possibility of facing and going beyond self and self delusion.

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.