GENIUS FORUMS

Could those who are of a mind to do so, for the sake of greater clarity in this discussion, give me their definition of "self"? Please do so without resort to any synonyms whatever. No "I"s in other words. Basically I want to see who can actually do it (no dictionaries or Wiki either, dammit).

Well, for those of us who "believe" in the self that should be fairly easy, no? (!)

Unified subjective experience (cognitive and/or emotional) of an individual.

EDIT: to add "(!)"

Dan Rowden wrote:Could those who are of a mind to do so, for the sake of greater clarity in this discussion, give me their definition of "self"? Please do so without resort to any synonyms whatever. No "I"s in other words. Basically I want to see who can actually do it (no dictionaries or Wiki either, dammit).

The self the idea of the being which one occupies. The body and the mind and all of their functions, normally. The self can also be the idea of the whole of all existence.

See how hard it is to define "self" without being tautological? So far I've got definitions that basically explain the application of the word but don't tell me what "self" is.

"The self the idea of the being which one occupies." What is a "one"?

Dan Rowden wrote:See how hard it is to define "self" without being tautological? So far I've got definitions that basically explain the application of the word but don't tell me what "self" is.

"The self the idea of the being which one occupies." What is a "one"?

Ah I see what you mean. I would say that "one" is the individual or the mind of a specific body that can then identify itself as the body or as the whole.

The "self" is the result of desire. No-self is the original face.

The self is a centre from which a conscious entity can focus on that which is not that centre.

It's like a cloud, really. Try to grab it, and it disappears in your hands.

Or fairy floss. Try to get your teeth into it, and it dissolves on your tongue.

Or, or, or...

Trying not to die right now.

give me their definition of "self"?

Basically I want to see who can actually do it

No "I"s in other words.

get a grip lad.

Really? Can't do it, then? You don't see that this whole thread is a total waste of space because no-one knows what anyone else is talking about?

The outburst looks silly.

Outburst, huh? Hmkay. I'll leave you folks to your chaos.

Dan Rowden wrote:no-one knows

no-one/one
self/not self

and the desire came from that KFC down the street...

Self is who you are.
Self-concept is who you think you are.

Orenholt:

Self plus other equals lack equals ego equals desire.

Therefore:

Asserting that "self can be the idea of the whole of all existence" (hm... only the idea?) and "the body and mind of a specific individual and all of [the body and mind's] functions" at the same time is simply a trick of ego to fill a self/other lack -- maybe with the body itself as the "other", eh?

Cahoot wrote:Self is who you are.
Self-concept is who you think you are.

How do you tell the difference?

Well, they need not be different.

The question of how suggests method. Dennis suggested the method of neti neti, a conceptual process. Tendencies determine the effectiveness of any particular method, but I think any perceived conflict in methods is just a limitation in understanding.

Dennis suggested the method of neti neti, a conceptual process.

You got that from Dennis's "get a grip lad" post?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Dennis suggested the method of neti neti, a conceptual process.

You got that from Dennis's "get a grip lad" post?

Three Dennis postings prior to that.

Dennis wrote:Who am I?
not that, not that, not that.

The self can't be directly observed. Any description of the self is nothing more than a conceptual projection of it. It is the illusionary link between conscious reflection and an infinite causal past.

Russell wrote:The self can't be directly observed. Any description of the self is nothing more than a conceptual projection of it. It is the illusionary link between conscious reflection and an infinite causal past.

The best answer so far...would of been my original answer, but the words didn't form in my head coherently enough to express it...

The self can't be directly observed. Any description of the self is nothing more than a conceptual projection of it. It is the illusionary link between conscious reflection and an infinite causal past.

It can be experienced in a wordless understanding of being always/already present primordial to it arising as a 'speaker subject' and what it speaks of.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

The self can't be directly observed. Any description of the self is nothing more than a conceptual projection of it. It is the illusionary link between conscious reflection and an infinite causal past.

It can be experienced in a wordless understanding of being always/already present primordial to it arising as a 'speaker subject' and what it speaks of.

You are just replacing one image with another one here, Dennis, all the while suggesting the situation would be improved. Whatever is expressed verbally or conceptually always arises out of various "wordless understandings" or misunderstandings. Whatever you call "already present" is either illusion or unidentifiable, meaning we are not talking about any self, unless it's misunderstood. Here only logic can help someone untie this particular knot.

Logic shows up as a possibility in the domain of 'speaking subject' speaking speak.

Primordial to that event is a wordless, non-conceptual understanding of always/already presence.

Knottednes arises with labelling.

Listening unravels the labels,
they simply dissolve.