Psychology test
According to postmodernism, nothing is "pure". The personality which is you is an amalgam of disparate parts of culture, the way you were raised, genetics...in effect, postmodernism claims that there is no "authentic" you...that "you" have no real control over who "you" are and that the single unified "you" which you think you are, is, in fact, lots of little "you's" which you simply don't notice because...well...because you're in a bad position to judge...somewhat like studying the tip of your own nose without a mirror.
What do you think of this concept? I'm not quite sure I agree with it...but perhaps that's my deluded ego talking.
I find that I never truly feel like "myself" when in the company of others...and yet, when I am alone, I believe myself to be "true" to "who I am". Do you feel your identity emerges more clearly when in company or when alone? Strangers? or familiars?
Does it matter how clearly your identity manifests itself when you're alone, if no one ever views you that way? (If the tree falls in the forest question)
What is it about the company of others or solitude which allows you a clearer sense of identity or detracts from that identity?
Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 8/13/01 11:27:42 pm
manniac dharma explorer
Posts: 108
(8/14/01 9:45 pm) Reply
Re: Psychology test
I believe that one of the most fundamental truths is that there is no "you". The universe and everything in it is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of elements and matter. That mixture of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen that I just drank was literally a part of countless other things in the past, and is now a part of what is called "me".
The self is in a constant state of flux, so in reality there is no permanent arrangement that can be called self.
Having said that, I do think that it is easier to comprehend the implications of the non-existant self when no other humans are present.
This concludes today's dharma lesson. May you reflect upon it, come to understand it, and receive solace from it.
-----
edited because I can not spell.
Edited by: manniac at: 8/14/01 10:47:47 pm
Re: Psychology test Manniac made the point that we are in flux. I believe this to be true to a certain extent. I feel we are the sum of or experiences and as we gain more experience, these experiences help us deal with the ever new ones, ad nausium, (that is of course until that final day). In this respect there are many mini me's. Didn't Shakespeare say something about the 7 ages of man?
Now when it comes to the company of others the situation varies. Socially new crowd I'm fairly reticent. Professionally any crowd I'm initially nervous but as I gain momentum the crowd really kind of ceases to exist. Socially with friends I talk too much.
When I'm alone I just pull a face from the gallery and kick back. Yea that'd be ole Jim.
Quote: I believe that one of the most fundamental truths is that there is no "you". The universe and everything in it is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of elements and matter. That mixture of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen that I just drank was literally a part of countless other things in the past, and is now a part of what is called "me".
I seem to recall reading a Buddhist passage which asked the reader to consider the chair they were sitting on and question the borders between the self and the chair. I am atomic matter and the chair is atomic matter. I am sitting on the chair: where is the boarder between our two existences?
If I extend this, the atoms which comprise me are connected to the floor, the stairs, the street, my neighbors, etc ad infinitum.
The human mind needs boundaries...it can't function with so little definition...so the chair must remain "chair" and I remain "me"...simply because, I am far too simple a creature to think outside those boundaries on an everyday basis. Perhaps that is the definition of the "self" for me, a collection of limitations.
I always wonder about Buddhists. The philosophy is possible to understand but very difficult to incorporate to a point at which one's interactions and being issue out of the harmony of those beliefs. I get the sense that we're a few evolutionary steps removed from being capable of, what to our current society, would appear as humility in a deeper sense.
Or maybe the humility/incorporation problem is just my own?
Keld Feldspar
Quote: I feel we are the sum of or experiences and as we gain more experience, these experiences help us deal with the ever new ones, ad nausium, (that is of course until that final day). In this respect there are many mini me's. Didn't Shakespeare say something about the 7 ages of man?
We share much the same opinion...although I am constantly bogged down in the details.
Experiences change us in every moment...are we the same as a moment ago?
Am I the same person after 3 glasses of wine? Or a mango eaten with my fingers like a child? No sleep for 2 days?
Someone fallen in love with yesterday may mean nothing to me tomorrow...or I may pine for them for 12 years.
Is it the continuity of general content over time which defines "you" or "me"? Or is it the few moments in which we differ most from "who we are", and hit the borders of what we refer to as the self that should be seen as markers of identity?
Edited by: NousPoetikos at: 8/23/01 12:44:59 am
I am puzzled by 'ole Jim'. I've looked in your Profile but carefully you have left no clues there. Is he your Doppelganger?
Nous
I think I must have a psychological block with psychology. I just don't understand it - so cannot contribute - but Simplsimon will watch and read with interest. And maybe learn something! Ha ha.
Re: Psychology test Simplsimon Jim Morrison, of Doors fame.
I'm going to have to do better on my proofing.
Edited by: Keld Feldspar at: 8/24/01 8:32:24 pm
manniac dharma explorer
Posts: 125
(8/24/01 8:49 pm) Reply
Re: Psychology test
Quote: Nous: The human mind needs boundaries...it can't function with so little definition...so the chair must remain "chair" and I remain "me"...simply because, I am far too simple a creature to think outside those boundaries on an everyday basis. Perhaps that is the definition of the "self" for me, a collection of limitations
I would suggest that the portion of the universal mind that is most easily comprehensible to humans *does* have boundaries. Why not strive to break that paradigm that serves only to set up artificial barriers to a deeper understanding of reality?
Quote: Nous: I always wonder about Buddhists. The philosophy is possible to understand but very difficult to incorporate to a point at which one's interactions and being issue out of the harmony of those beliefs. I get the sense that we're a few evolutionary steps removed from being capable of, what to our current society, would appear as humility in a deeper sense.
But we *can* evolve toward that goal...bit by bit. The key is to not focus on the destination, but to experience the journey.
Quote: Nous: Or maybe the humility/incorporation problem is just my own?
Probably.
--------------
A poor analogy might be to think of the mind/brain relationship as if the brain were a radio, and the mind were radio waves. Countless radio waves blanket the universe, but we can only become aware of those that we can/do tune in to. Although we listen to only one station at a time, all of the rest are still there.
Quote: Why not strive to break that paradigm that serves only to set up artificial barriers to a deeper understanding of reality?
I guess because, (if I am understanding your meaning correctly), to walk down the street fully connected to every bit of the universe: from the woman being beaten up two doors down, to the man drinking himself to death, the couple watching tv, the rat avoiding the oncoming car, the cat which watches that rat in fascination from the window, etcetera and so on...to BE connected with all of those things would mean overload.
It would fry the circuits.
We can only take on solitary existence which ends at the depth of our skin...and some people even have difficulty comprehending that *very limited* reality.
I agree with you that the idea is evolve towards...but my pessimists opinion is that the sun will supernova before we reach a higher level of interconnectedness with all things...
especially considering the fact that present day humanity appears to be going through a "ME! ME! ME!" stage at the moment.
manniac dharma explorer
Posts: 127
(8/24/01 10:57 pm) Reply
Re: Psychology test
Realizing that all is interconnected is one thing. Attempting to empathize with all things simultaneously is another thing, and likely would be overwhelming.
Re: Psychology test
Yes, but realizing is not enough to stop most people from killing the mosquito or uttering a harsh word to someone they love, or yelling at the dog, etc.
Without that deeper comprehension which would have to border on empathy in order to be ingrained into us, it remains and idea rather than a state.
I *wish* we were capable of the state...
(And I'm laughing at myself as I say this because the quote attributed to Buddha is popped into my mind as I finished the above sentence: "All desire is suffering").
manniac dharma explorer
Posts: 128
(8/25/01 8:03 am) Reply
Re: Psychology test
And I'm chuckling now also....
Right you are; it has been reported that Buddha also taught that even striving for enlightenment is to be avoided.
Quote: Without that deeper comprehension which would have to border on empathy in order to be ingrained into us, it remains and idea rather than a state.
Of course, it will not be *ingrained* until enlightenment is reached; in fact that is one definition of enlightenment. It remains an idea and an *ideal* until such time. Over time it *does* become easier to refrain from killing the mosquito, or speaking harshly, and you realize that you are a happier person because of it. Acceptance of the fact that you will occassionally do what you know to be wrong is essential for contentment with your life and your place in the journey to whatever awaits you.
Wanderer Registered User
Posts: 1
(11/1/01 5:26 pm) Reply
Re: Psychology test
Quote: I find that I never truly feel like "myself" when in the company of others...and yet, when I am alone, I believe myself to be "true" to "who I am". Do you feel your identity emerges more clearly when in company or when alone? Strangers? or familiars?
When talking about the clarity of an emerging identity, it is difficult (if not impossible) to escape the problem of interpretation. I think identity is always emergent and always to the same degree. Identity is always that which is expressed. The question, then, is how clear or "true" is our understanding of one's identity. The catch, as I see it, is that the referent is not only unstable and in a state of flux, but that it is essentially intangible. Truth is superficial. As soon as we look "beneath" it, we are looking at something else.
So, how can the clarity of one's identity depend on context? I think of it this way: in some circumstances, we are comfortable acting without consideration for our identity. In comfortable situations, we do not care if our actions present any particular "self." It is rare to be able to find that sort of comfort in the presence of other people. Speaking for myself, at least, other people present a huge problem in the form of expectations. We worry about how we seem--which really means we worry about who we are. Identity is only an issue when other people come into play. When we are alone, we may worry about identity as well--but, I believe such thoughts are always in relation to other people.
Quote: Does it matter how clearly your identity manifests itself when you're alone, if no one ever views you that way? (If the tree falls in the forest question)
Noting my problem with the concept of "clarity," I would say that one's psychological well-being is always an issue, whether we are alone or not. Only in that sense does it matter (as far as I can tell.)
Quote: What is it about the company of others or solitude which allows you a clearer sense of identity or detracts from that identity?
I think solitude is necessary--even when one has a friend (or friends) with whom they feel completely comfortable and uninhibited. Perhaps we need to be alone sometimes if only to remember that we are individuals. But then I think, what about small, tribal cultures--say, the Native Americans, for example? Did they need alone time? Perhaps we require more time alone because of the overpopulation and mass communication that defines our culture.
Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/1/01 6:29:02 pm
Ah, it was a wonderful trail of bread crumbs that led to wander to this little house in the forest. I am very glad to see you here. Welcome.
Quote: We worry about how we seem--which really means we worry about who we are. Identity is only an issue when other people come into play. When we are alone, we may worry about identity as well--but, I believe such thoughts are always in relation to other people.
Quote: Perhaps we need to be alone sometimes if only to remember that we are individuals.
It's interesting, I think there are really two processes which occur for me in the company of others: the first is that I am forced to remember the rather tawdry details of "what" I am (by which I mean, female, single, programmer, 30yrs old, etc.) and "what" the other person is in order to avoid crossing boundaries or behaving inappropriately. The other is, as you mention, expectations. Expectations combined with having to constantly remind myself of my role create (for me, at least) a rather potent brew of loneliness which comes from finding oneself (as an individual) faced with dealing of the uniqueness of a situation in which one is engaged. Every situation which involves another human being is, by nature, unique.
Strangely enough, in contrast to your last statement, it is only when I am alone that I am able to forget what I am and simply "be". This "beingness" tends to dissolve my sense of "being imprisoned in the realm of perception and expectation which necassarily accompanies being seen as an individual". When alone, I am far less likely to feel lonely.
Again, perhaps my take on this is a bit nutty...?
As I remember, Wanderer, you are rather well versed in theory. Do you agree with the idea that the personality is a construction or do you think there is some amount of will/genetics which manages to evade the co-opting which is culture?
Wanderer Registered User
Posts: 2
(11/1/01 10:11 pm) Reply
Re: Psychology test
Thank you for the incredibly gracious welcome! I'm very glad to see you here, as well.
Quote: Strangely enough, in contrast to your last statement, it is only when I am alone that I am able to forget what I am and simply "be". This "beingness" tends to dissolve my sense of "being imprisoned in the realm of perception and expectation which necassarily accompanies being seen as an individual".
I had a very similar thought after I posted. We do feel a social pressure, an expectation, to be an individual. When we are alone, we have more freedom to explore being many people. We can let go of our authoritative inner gaze and let our actions flow unrestrained. This could be thought of as creative inconsistency. However, I don't think one has to be alone to experience this freedom. Unfortunately, it is very rare that we find people with whom we can feel so unencumbered. Also, I think we are culturally conditioned to carry such a weight, making the letting-go process taboo.
Quote: When alone, I am far less likely to feel lonely.
Loneliness is an interesting subject--and one of personal interest to me. I used to feel the most lonely when I was with family. Televesion was always there to separate us, so we could be alone in the same room. Commodities are good that way--they mediate, creating distance, allowing us to feel protected by projecting an image that we think conforms with other peoples' expectations. Commodities make us feel lonely the way caffeine makes us tired--they provide an addictive quick fix to hide our inability to be free with other people. Some people are more sensitive to this process, making them more reclusive. Perhaps such people are more artistic. I wonder if artists are more prone to asocial behavior precisely because they thrive on the creative freedom that comes with being alone.
Glenn Gould, the late classical pianist, comes to mind--he loved the extreme isolation of northern Canada; he even made a radio documentary about it, called "The Idea Of North." He actually gave up the concert hall and spent the last twenty years of his life expressing his art solely through recordings and radio. He had a very rational attitude about it--he was morally against the stage, as it separates the artist from the audience. He thought technology was the means of giving creative power to the listener, leaving the artist to bask in absolute anonymity. Of course, I should also mention that his philosophy came out in other ways, which don't seem desirable (to me, at least): most of his conversations with people took place over the telephone. His was certainly an extreme case, but I think it has implications for everybody. When aloneness becomes a cure for loneliness, our creative instincts lead to asocial behavior.
As a musician, my goal is to find other musicians with whom I can explore that unemcumbered state of "being." I think all art forms require us to balance our desire to create freely and our need to weigh other people's expectations. Even in a solitary form, such as painting, you factor in the expectations of your audience (to some extent or another.) With improvised music, however, the moment of freedom is shared--but it cannot be a completely free moment, there is always a tension to be released.
Quote: the first is that I am forced to remember the rather tawdry details of "what" I am (by which I mean, female, single, programmer, 30yrs old, etc.) and "what" the other person is in order to avoid crossing boundaries or behaving inappropriately.
Ah, yes! Other people often force us to face "what" we are. Being alone offers us the opportunity to escape the responsibility of being anybody in particular--opening new doors for the creation of what we want to become.
Quote: Expectations combined with having to constantly remind myself of my role create (for me, at least) a rather potent brew of loneliness which comes from finding oneself (as an individual) faced with dealing of the uniqueness of a situation in which one is engaged.
It sounds like you are talking about alienation, feeling an inability to identify with other people, an inability to interpret your own circumstances as having a universal quality which can be shared by other individuals. We are all faced with the sometimes frightening, sometimes exhilarating prospect that we are all completely and utterly different. Yet, we have an instinct which tells us to identify with each other, to interpret our own "whatness" as being of the same kind as other peoples' "whatness."
Quote: Again, perhaps my take on this is a bit nutty...?
Perhaps, but then I must be nutty, as well.
Quote: As I remember, Wanderer, you are rather well versed in theory.
And now you've given me a role to live up to. It would only be fair for me to accept at least partial responsibility for projecting such an image. I plead guilty to the occasional spouting of theory and dropping of names. I've always tried to be tactful.
Quote: Do you agree with the idea that the personality is a construction or do you think there is some amount of will/genetics which manages to evade the co-opting which is culture?
If we weren't wired to work a certain way, we wouldn't desire creative freedom, we wouldn't feel encumbered social expectations and we wouldn't seek refuge in commodity forms. But, given our wiring (which is subject to change, as it is), the play of becoming which defines human culture operates on a different level altogether. The ways we organize our expression change as culture (which includes technology) changes. Some cultures are more encouraging to creative freedom than others. Considering the physiological basis of mind, I think of culture as a tool in the hands of our emotions.
Creativity, however, is not personality . . . or is it?
Edited by: Wanderer at: 11/2/01 2:19:57 pm
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies