Authenticity and Identity:What Does it Mean to Find Your 'True' Self?

[JackDaydream]

It's a nonsensical idea in a philosophical forum.

Provided there is a "true self", if you seek your "true self". Do you seek it internally or externally? It appears that seeking it externally is nonsense. So seeking your "true self" in philosophical texts and their ideas seems to be ignorance. But seeking it internally would amount to introspection which is beyond philosophical discussion because what appears to you internally doesn't appear to others because it appears internally and not externally.
Therefore the idea "true self" is a nonsensical idea in a philosophical forum but it wouldn't be a nonsensical idea in a zen buddhist forum (zen buddhism appears to be the only buddhist tradition that has sub-traditions which affirm the idea of "true self").

My understanding of Buddhism, is that many question the idea of the existence of self, seeing it as fluid and an arbitrary construct. However, there are many variations in schools of Buddhism and individual viewpoints. As far as the issue of whether the 'true' self can be found within or outside is complex, involving subjectivity, intersubjectivity and objectivity and the vantage point of perception. As human beings we may exist in all at the same time, juggling these categories of understanding.

One book which has bearing on this is Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. He looks at the sense of self and how it develops in response to the 'thou' depending on how it is located or perceived. In religious thinking, the thou is seen as subjective identity in relation to God, or the divine. In contrast, he suggests that when people withdraw their projection onto a perceived other, as God, or the divine, the idea of self identity is thrown back into the social sphere and, especially, onto the opinions of other people.

Well, as far as I am concerned (note the funny expression "I am" ) I take refuge to my working hypothesis of eliminative materialism:

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

When you speak of eliminative materialism, I am thinking that you are thinking of the perspective of Daniel Dennett, or possibly the behaviourist, BF Skinner. These see the mind as being an illusory concept. The self can be seen as an interface between body and mind, and, to a large extent, I see it as a phenomenological construct. Like the concept of mind itself it can be seen as bound up with the material world but different thinkers vary in the understanding of whether it can be reduced to the brain/body.

It would be problematic to see the self as disembodied, like a 'ghost in the machine', but on the other hand, it is questionable whether it is simply a product of the body because it is connected to the nature of intersubjective experience on a social level, bound up with cultural values and social meanings, which is along the lines of what Hegel meant by the idea of 'spirit'. Of course, Hegel could be seen as an idealist, so it partly depends how this idea of 'spirit' is viewed and how significant it is seen to be in an ultimate way.

[stevie]

Provided there is a "true self", if you seek your "true self". Do you seek it internally or externally? It appears that seeking it externally is nonsense. So seeking your "true self" in philosophical texts and their ideas seems to be ignorance. But seeking it internally would amount to introspection which is beyond philosophical discussion because what appears to you internally doesn't appear to others because it appears internally and not externally.
Therefore the idea "true self" is a nonsensical idea in a philosophical forum but it wouldn't be a nonsensical idea in a zen buddhist forum (zen buddhism appears to be the only buddhist tradition that has sub-traditions which affirm the idea of "true self").

My understanding of Buddhism, is that many question the idea of the existence of self, seeing it as fluid and an arbitrary construct. However, there are many variations in schools of Buddhism and individual viewpoints. As far as the issue of whether the 'true' self can be found within or outside is complex, involving subjectivity, intersubjectivity and objectivity and the vantage point of perception. As human beings we may exist in all at the same time, juggling these categories of understanding.

One book which has bearing on this is Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. He looks at the sense of self and how it develops in response to the 'thou' depending on how it is located or perceived. In religious thinking, the thou is seen as subjective identity in relation to God, or the divine. In contrast, he suggests that when people withdraw their projection onto a perceived other, as God, or the divine, the idea of self identity is thrown back into the social sphere and, especially, onto the opinions of other people.

Well, as far as I am concerned (note the funny expression "I am" ) I take refuge to my working hypothesis of eliminative materialism:

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

When you speak of eliminative materialism, I am thinking that you are thinking of the perspective of Daniel Dennett, or possibly the behaviourist, BF Skinner. These see the mind as being an illusory concept. The self can be seen as an interface between body and mind, and, to a large extent, I see it as a phenomenological construct. Like the concept of mind itself it can be seen as bound up with the material world but different thinkers vary in the understanding of whether it can be reduced to the brain/body.

It would be problematic to see the self as disembodied, like a 'ghost in the machine', but on the other hand, it is questionable whether it is simply a product of the body because it is connected to the nature of intersubjective experience on a social level, bound up with cultural values and social meanings, which is along the lines of what Hegel meant by the idea of 'spirit'. Of course, Hegel could be seen as an idealist, so it partly depends how this idea of 'spirit' is viewed and how significant it is seen to be in an ultimate way.

Do you get the infinite regress of "It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, ..." ?

[JackDaydream]

My understanding of Buddhism, is that many question the idea of the existence of self, seeing it as fluid and an arbitrary construct. However, there are many variations in schools of Buddhism and individual viewpoints. As far as the issue of whether the 'true' self can be found within or outside is complex, involving subjectivity, intersubjectivity and objectivity and the vantage point of perception. As human beings we may exist in all at the same time, juggling these categories of understanding.

One book which has bearing on this is Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. He looks at the sense of self and how it develops in response to the 'thou' depending on how it is located or perceived. In religious thinking, the thou is seen as subjective identity in relation to God, or the divine. In contrast, he suggests that when people withdraw their projection onto a perceived other, as God, or the divine, the idea of self identity is thrown back into the social sphere and, especially, onto the opinions of other people.

Well, as far as I am concerned (note the funny expression "I am" ) I take refuge to my working hypothesis of eliminative materialism:

Eliminative materialism appears as appropriate working hypothesis to me which entails that all of mentality (mental phenomena like "consciousness", "mind", "feelings", "volition", "intention", an appearing sense of "self" but also all concepts and ideas) are - best case - illusory but useful artifices created by the brain or - worst case - illusory and harmful by-products of the brains outstanding computational capacities which entail temporary or pathological imbalances in the system of regulating neurological circuits.
It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, so I am neither speculating about a "reality" nor am I trying to find a "true reality" but - as per working hypothesis - the brain makes me express what I am expressing and creates my sense of "self" which supports the useful illusion that it would be me who decides about what I am thinking, affirming and negating and intending to express and do. But all this is - as per working hypothesis - only an artifice of the brain's system of self regulating circuits which is completely in line with what humans understand as "everyday life".

When you speak of eliminative materialism, I am thinking that you are thinking of the perspective of Daniel Dennett, or possibly the behaviourist, BF Skinner. These see the mind as being an illusory concept. The self can be seen as an interface between body and mind, and, to a large extent, I see it as a phenomenological construct. Like the concept of mind itself it can be seen as bound up with the material world but different thinkers vary in the understanding of whether it can be reduced to the brain/body.

It would be problematic to see the self as disembodied, like a 'ghost in the machine', but on the other hand, it is questionable whether it is simply a product of the body because it is connected to the nature of intersubjective experience on a social level, bound up with cultural values and social meanings, which is along the lines of what Hegel meant by the idea of 'spirit'. Of course, Hegel could be seen as an idealist, so it partly depends how this idea of 'spirit' is viewed and how significant it is seen to be in an ultimate way.

Do you get the infinite regress of "It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, ..." ?

I am not sure what you are asking. That is because I am not trying to propose a hypothesis as such. The understanding of the self is not strictly one of science and is more one of understanding human meaning it occurs in an arts or humanities based perspective. I know that you speak of eliminative materialism but I am not sure how that can be congruent with the experience of subjective reality and identity.

[stevie]

Well, as far as I am concerned (note the funny expression "I am" ) I take refuge to my working hypothesis of eliminative materialism:

When you speak of eliminative materialism, I am thinking that you are thinking of the perspective of Daniel Dennett, or possibly the behaviourist, BF Skinner. These see the mind as being an illusory concept. The self can be seen as an interface between body and mind, and, to a large extent, I see it as a phenomenological construct. Like the concept of mind itself it can be seen as bound up with the material world but different thinkers vary in the understanding of whether it can be reduced to the brain/body.

It would be problematic to see the self as disembodied, like a 'ghost in the machine', but on the other hand, it is questionable whether it is simply a product of the body because it is connected to the nature of intersubjective experience on a social level, bound up with cultural values and social meanings, which is along the lines of what Hegel meant by the idea of 'spirit'. Of course, Hegel could be seen as an idealist, so it partly depends how this idea of 'spirit' is viewed and how significant it is seen to be in an ultimate way.

Do you get the infinite regress of "It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, ..." ?

I am not sure what you are asking. That is because I am not trying to propose a hypothesis as such. The understanding of the self is not strictly one of science and is more one of understanding human meaning it occurs in an arts or humanities based perspective. I know that you speak of eliminative materialism but I am not sure how that can be congruent with the experience of subjective reality and identity.

It's congruent with every type of verbal expression, so it's congruent with all possible categories of "reality", categories like "objective" and "subjective" and "ultimate" and "conventional" and what have you and "identity" as well.

[JackDaydream]

When you speak of eliminative materialism, I am thinking that you are thinking of the perspective of Daniel Dennett, or possibly the behaviourist, BF Skinner. These see the mind as being an illusory concept. The self can be seen as an interface between body and mind, and, to a large extent, I see it as a phenomenological construct. Like the concept of mind itself it can be seen as bound up with the material world but different thinkers vary in the understanding of whether it can be reduced to the brain/body.

It would be problematic to see the self as disembodied, like a 'ghost in the machine', but on the other hand, it is questionable whether it is simply a product of the body because it is connected to the nature of intersubjective experience on a social level, bound up with cultural values and social meanings, which is along the lines of what Hegel meant by the idea of 'spirit'. Of course, Hegel could be seen as an idealist, so it partly depends how this idea of 'spirit' is viewed and how significant it is seen to be in an ultimate way.

Do you get the infinite regress of "It's important that this working hypothesis needs to be applied to itself, i.e. to the thoughts I am expressing here, too, ..." ?

I am not sure what you are asking. That is because I am not trying to propose a hypothesis as such. The understanding of the self is not strictly one of science and is more one of understanding human meaning it occurs in an arts or humanities based perspective. I know that you speak of eliminative materialism but I am not sure how that can be congruent with the experience of subjective reality and identity.

It's congruent with every type of verbal expression, so it's congruent with all possible categories of "reality", categories like "objective" and "subjective" and "ultimate" and "conventional" and what have you and "identity" as well.

It does go back to the issue of concepts and what they represent. In a way, I can relate to the word hypothesis because I am aware of the basics of scientific method, but all of this does relate to the way in which language and naming of concepts comes in. In all explanations, including science, there is the issue of meanings, which is hermeneutics. Whether it is mind, body or spirit, including spirit in the way Hegel argues, it is about thinking about ideas and values. This is where eliminative materialism becomes unstuck because it is unable to account for the translation of concepts into subjective meanings. The self may be a vague concept, and as Buddhists point out may be arbitrary, but in life, and common sense,the sense of self exists as a central reference point for working out what one likes and dislikes as a guideline in autonomy. Without such self and some principle of authenticity, whether it is named or not, a person would be like some jellyfish mind, struggling without cohesive will or purpose.

[stevie]

The self may be a vague concept, and as Buddhists point out may be arbitrary, but in life, and common sense,the sense of self exists as a central reference point for working out what one likes and dislikes as a guideline in autonomy. Without such self and some principle of authenticity, whether it is named or not, a person would be like some jellyfish mind, struggling without cohesive will or purpose.

Referring to the wording of my working hypothesis: the sense of self is a useful illusion because without it intentionality would be impossible and thus planning of and struggle for survival would be impossible, too. Since the jellyfish struggles for survival, too, it isn't evident whether this happens on the basis of similiar illusiory phenomena or not, but certainly the human brain is unequaled with its capacity to produce useful illusions.

[JackDaydream]

The self may be a vague concept, and as Buddhists point out may be arbitrary, but in life, and common sense,the sense of self exists as a central reference point for working out what one likes and dislikes as a guideline in autonomy. Without such self and some principle of authenticity, whether it is named or not, a person would be like some jellyfish mind, struggling without cohesive will or purpose.

Referring to the wording of my working hypothesis: the sense of self is a useful illusion because without it intentionality would be impossible and thus planning of and struggle for survival would be impossible, too. Since the jellyfish struggles for survival, too, it isn't evident whether this happens on the basis of similiar illusiory phenomena or not, but certainly the human brain is unequaled with its capacity to produce useful illusions.

Whether or not a self exists as an entity or some illusory construct it would be hard to function like a jellyfish or piece of jelly without one. It is like the organising principle. It is likely that it is bound up with thought in relation to language. That is probably what makes human beings so distinct because it involves narrative structure through the meaning of word, as opposed to mere images. With memories, these may be based on thoughts about experiences as much as by the actual raw experiences themselves on a sensory basis.

[Samana Johann]

This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, Modernism and Self- Identity in the Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that, 'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-construction it has to be informed by overall goals- those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment.' He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which understanding of the body takes place in relation to abstract philosophy concepts and within cultural contexts. He explores how human identity has become mobilized through the perspective of modernity, and how bodily appearance has become more significant, as well as lifestyle regimes.

The sense of authentic selfhood may have become more fragmented throughout postmodernism and its aftermath, especially in the context of communication networks in the twentieth first century. Personal identity may be more connected to online interaction and the bombombardment of images and ideas in the media. However, there are deeper philosophical issues related to human identity. This involves understanding of oneself and the deeper existential aspects of the sense of being.

Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing, especially in his, 'The Divided Self".I have reread this recently and while while it was important in the movement of antipsychiatry, which has faded, it may stand out in the way in which it examines the existential aspects of the self, especially the idea of the false self. Laing suggests that the false self is connected to the idea of the idea of apa persona and the presentation of self in social life, pointing to the adoption of aspects of social identity and social roles. One particular idea which Laing develops is that of 'ontological security', arguing that a 'a basically ontologically secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own identity.' Laing draws upon the idea of the imaginary self, and the real, developed by Sartre, arguing that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy.'

I am asking the question of what it means to find the 'true' self. It is fairly complex because it involves the social and existential aspects of self, including value judgments about the lower and higher aspects of human life and functioning. It is also bound up with the issue of the social and existential sense of self. Does the idea of a 'true 'self make sense philosophically? Also, to what extent is the self connected to the relationships a person has with others, or as a being alone, or in relation to the wider sense of making sense of the perspective of identity in the cosmos?

Good householder,

if up to investigating the save way is to look what's not real, changing, no refuge and therefore not proper to regard as own, me, my.
It could be successful if simply sitting down in front of a mirror and start to investigate.

[JackDaydream]

This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, Modernism and Self- Identity in the Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that, 'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-construction it has to be informed by overall goals- those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment.' He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which understanding of the body takes place in relation to abstract philosophy concepts and within cultural contexts. He explores how human identity has become mobilized through the perspective of modernity, and how bodily appearance has become more significant, as well as lifestyle regimes.

The sense of authentic selfhood may have become more fragmented throughout postmodernism and its aftermath, especially in the context of communication networks in the twentieth first century. Personal identity may be more connected to online interaction and the bombombardment of images and ideas in the media. However, there are deeper philosophical issues related to human identity. This involves understanding of oneself and the deeper existential aspects of the sense of being.

Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing, especially in his, 'The Divided Self".I have reread this recently and while while it was important in the movement of antipsychiatry, which has faded, it may stand out in the way in which it examines the existential aspects of the self, especially the idea of the false self. Laing suggests that the false self is connected to the idea of the idea of apa persona and the presentation of self in social life, pointing to the adoption of aspects of social identity and social roles. One particular idea which Laing develops is that of 'ontological security', arguing that a 'a basically ontologically secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own identity.' Laing draws upon the idea of the imaginary self, and the real, developed by Sartre, arguing that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy.'

I am asking the question of what it means to find the 'true' self. It is fairly complex because it involves the social and existential aspects of self, including value judgments about the lower and higher aspects of human life and functioning. It is also bound up with the issue of the social and existential sense of self. Does the idea of a 'true 'self make sense philosophically? Also, to what extent is the self connected to the relationships a person has with others, or as a being alone, or in relation to the wider sense of making sense of the perspective of identity in the cosmos?

Good householder,

if up to investigating the save way is to look what's not real, changing, no refuge and therefore not proper to regard as own, me, my.
It could be successful if simply sitting down in front of a mirror and start to investigate.

In thinking about the nature of what is real and what is illusory, the nature of impermanence is essential. Thinking back, such as to childhood memories, while the memories are still there, almost every aspect has changed. The good and bad experiences are all so transitory even though they do change the core nature of one's identity on the inner level of life.

[Samana Johann]

This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, Modernism and Self- Identity in the Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that, 'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-construction it has to be informed by overall goals- those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment.' He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which understanding of the body takes place in relation to abstract philosophy concepts and within cultural contexts. He explores how human identity has become mobilized through the perspective of modernity, and how bodily appearance has become more significant, as well as lifestyle regimes.

The sense of authentic selfhood may have become more fragmented throughout postmodernism and its aftermath, especially in the context of communication networks in the twentieth first century. Personal identity may be more connected to online interaction and the bombombardment of images and ideas in the media. However, there are deeper philosophical issues related to human identity. This involves understanding of oneself and the deeper existential aspects of the sense of being.

Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing, especially in his, 'The Divided Self".I have reread this recently and while while it was important in the movement of antipsychiatry, which has faded, it may stand out in the way in which it examines the existential aspects of the self, especially the idea of the false self. Laing suggests that the false self is connected to the idea of the idea of apa persona and the presentation of self in social life, pointing to the adoption of aspects of social identity and social roles. One particular idea which Laing develops is that of 'ontological security', arguing that a 'a basically ontologically secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own identity.' Laing draws upon the idea of the imaginary self, and the real, developed by Sartre, arguing that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy.'

I am asking the question of what it means to find the 'true' self. It is fairly complex because it involves the social and existential aspects of self, including value judgments about the lower and higher aspects of human life and functioning. It is also bound up with the issue of the social and existential sense of self. Does the idea of a 'true 'self make sense philosophically? Also, to what extent is the self connected to the relationships a person has with others, or as a being alone, or in relation to the wider sense of making sense of the perspective of identity in the cosmos?

Good householder,

if up to investigating the save way is to look what's not real, changing, no refuge and therefore not proper to regard as own, me, my.
It could be successful if simply sitting down in front of a mirror and start to investigate.

In thinking about the nature of what is real and what is illusory, the nature of impermanence is essential. Thinking back, such as to childhood memories, while the memories are still there, almost every aspect has changed. The good and bad experiences are all so transitory even though they do change the core nature of one's identity on the inner level of life.

Good to start investigation at more cross level, starting by the Body, form and what comes along the five senses, good householder.

[JackDaydream]

This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, Modernism and Self- Identity in the Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that, 'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-construction it has to be informed by overall goals- those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment.' He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which understanding of the body takes place in relation to abstract philosophy concepts and within cultural contexts. He explores how human identity has become mobilized through the perspective of modernity, and how bodily appearance has become more significant, as well as lifestyle regimes.

The sense of authentic selfhood may have become more fragmented throughout postmodernism and its aftermath, especially in the context of communication networks in the twentieth first century. Personal identity may be more connected to online interaction and the bombombardment of images and ideas in the media. However, there are deeper philosophical issues related to human identity. This involves understanding of oneself and the deeper existential aspects of the sense of being.

Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing, especially in his, 'The Divided Self".I have reread this recently and while while it was important in the movement of antipsychiatry, which has faded, it may stand out in the way in which it examines the existential aspects of the self, especially the idea of the false self. Laing suggests that the false self is connected to the idea of the idea of apa persona and the presentation of self in social life, pointing to the adoption of aspects of social identity and social roles. One particular idea which Laing develops is that of 'ontological security', arguing that a 'a basically ontologically secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own identity.' Laing draws upon the idea of the imaginary self, and the real, developed by Sartre, arguing that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy.'

I am asking the question of what it means to find the 'true' self. It is fairly complex because it involves the social and existential aspects of self, including value judgments about the lower and higher aspects of human life and functioning. It is also bound up with the issue of the social and existential sense of self. Does the idea of a 'true 'self make sense philosophically? Also, to what extent is the self connected to the relationships a person has with others, or as a being alone, or in relation to the wider sense of making sense of the perspective of identity in the cosmos?

Good householder,

if up to investigating the save way is to look what's not real, changing, no refuge and therefore not proper to regard as own, me, my.
It could be successful if simply sitting down in front of a mirror and start to investigate.

In thinking about the nature of what is real and what is illusory, the nature of impermanence is essential. Thinking back, such as to childhood memories, while the memories are still there, almost every aspect has changed. The good and bad experiences are all so transitory even though they do change the core nature of one's identity on the inner level of life.

Good to start investigation at more cross level, starting by the Body, form and what comes along the five senses, good householder.

The body is in a constant change of form from being a baby, for the whole of life. In many cases a child is unrecognisable from the person many decades later. The changes are so minimal gradually. I understand that each cell in the body is replaced every 7 years. Also, the DNA gets weaker and that is why aging occurs. Stress and an unhealthy lifestyle may speed it up so much. I have even seen a couple of school age children with a significant amount of grey hair. People have different genetics and some are more susceptible towards certain diseases.

The life expectancy has increased to a maximum although many live in a debilitated state, and many have dementia which can be like a complete change of personality. One factor which I found when I was working in a mental hospital ward for older adults was that even people who had severe dementia often became so more aware and almost transformed when listening to music from earlier times. This is probably due to the way in which music affects emotions and the neurological aspects of the brain.

There are many attempts to curb and slow down aging, some which work more than others. Most people need glasses eventually, but I have worn them since I began school. There is a lot of fear of the aging process and this probably impacts upon mental health strongly. There is the transhumanist movement which is about slowing down the processes and extending life almost indefinitely but I am sceptical of how far it will go and it may be for the elite wealthy alone, making them like an a master race of elders/'gods'.

Another aspect which may be involved in the body form and life experiences is the factor of karma. It is meant to be the law of cause and effect. It may be that the way it works is that rather than cause and effect being at a strictly material level, it goes so much deeper, with the subconscious or oversoul leading to the manifestation of life in the outer aspects of life, including bodily form.

[Samana Johann]

Good householder,

if up to investigating the save way is to look what's not real, changing, no refuge and therefore not proper to regard as own, me, my.
It could be successful if simply sitting down in front of a mirror and start to investigate.

In thinking about the nature of what is real and what is illusory, the nature of impermanence is essential. Thinking back, such as to childhood memories, while the memories are still there, almost every aspect has changed. The good and bad experiences are all so transitory even though they do change the core nature of one's identity on the inner level of life.

Good to start investigation at more cross level, starting by the Body, form and what comes along the five senses, good householder.

The body is in a constant change of form from being a baby, for the whole of life. In many cases a child is unrecognisable from the person many decades later. The changes are so minimal gradually. I understand that each cell in the body is replaced every 7 years. Also, the DNA gets weaker and that is why aging occurs. Stress and an unhealthy lifestyle may speed it up so much. I have even seen a couple of school age children with a significant amount of grey hair. People have different genetics and some are more susceptible towards certain diseases.

The life expectancy has increased to a maximum although many live in a debilitated state, and many have dementia which can be like a complete change of personality. One factor which I found when I was working in a mental hospital ward for older adults was that even people who had severe dementia often became so more aware and almost transformed when listening to music from earlier times. This is probably due to the way in which music affects emotions and the neurological aspects of the brain.

There are many attempts to curb and slow down aging, some which work more than others. Most people need glasses eventually, but I have worn them since I began school. There is a lot of fear of the aging process and this probably impacts upon mental health strongly. There is the transhumanist movement which is about slowing down the processes and extending life almost indefinitely but I am sceptical of how far it will go and it may be for the elite wealthy alone, making them like an a master race of elders/'gods'.

Another aspect which may be involved in the body form and life experiences is the factor of karma. It is meant to be the law of cause and effect. It may be that the way it works is that rather than cause and effect being at a strictly material level, it goes so much deeper, with the subconscious or oversoul leading to the manifestation of life in the outer aspects of life, including bodily form.

As one flips fast to what's in the sphere of memory (saññā), good to simply look rather then to rationalize, good householder.

So what about the eye? Real, or object to change? Control-able? What about form? Ear? Decays? Under ones control? Sound: any lasting, any real? Watch, listen direct! What about nose and smell? Any smell real, lasting, able to control? Tongue, taste? Body, touch at the body? Mind? Ideas?

What about touch on the senses? Any lasting, real, under control? Any touch like the last, previous? What about the feeling arising on touch? Real or different in each case? What about perception (memory) arising on touch? What about consciousness arising on touch?

"Scanning" through it and giving up of which isn't real, lasting, therefore burdensome, therefore not proper to regard as me, myself or I.

Getting through the gross one soon arrives at virtue. Arrived at real virtue, as one would hardly do wrong for what of less worth, one gains freedom of remorse, better identity, higher, and is able to go deeper/higher, gains required concentration to see through the net.

[Ecurb]

Extra:
I had a teacher at school who used to say, "You have to lose yourself in order to find yourself'....

One of my favorite adventure and exploration books is The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Gerrard. Cherry-Gerrard was a member of the ill-fated Falcon-Scott race to the south Pole. However, the titular "worst journey" refers to a winter trek Gerrard and one companion made to find the Emperor Penguin's nesting gorunds. The final paragraph of this book speaks to your teacher's comment:

Exploration is the physical expression of the Intellectual Passion.

And I tell you, if you have the desire for knowledge and the power to give it physical expression, go out and explore. If you are a brave man you will do nothing: if you are fearful you may do much, for none but cowards have need to prove their bravery. Some will tell you that you are mad, and nearly all will say, "What is the use?" For we are a nation of shopkeepers, and no shopkeeper will look at research which does not promise him a financial return within a year. And so you will sledge nearly alone, but those with whom you sledge will not be shopkeepers: that is worth a good deal. If you march your Winter Journeys you will have your reward, so long as all you want is a penguin's egg.

[JackDaydream]

In thinking about the nature of what is rea7l and what is illusory, the nature of impermanence is essential. Thinking back, such as to childhood memories, while the memories are still there, almost every aspect has changed. The good and bad experiences are all so transitory even though they do change the core nature of one's identity on the inner level of life.

Good to start investigation at more cross level, starting by the Body, form and what comes along the five senses, good householder.

The body is in a constant change of form from being a baby, for the whole of life. In many cases a child is unrecognisable from the person many decades later. The changes are so minimal gradually. I understand that each cell in the body is replaced every 7 years. Also, the DNA gets weaker and that is why aging occurs. Stress and an unhealthy lifestyle may speed it up so much. I have even seen a couple of school age children with a significant amount of grey hair. People have different genetics and some are more susceptible towards certain diseases.

The life expectancy has increased to a maximum although many live in a debilitated state, and many have dementia which can be like a complete change of personality. One factor which I found when I was working in a mental hospital ward for older adults was that even people who had severe dementia often became so more aware and almost transformed when listening to music from earlier times. This is probably due to the way in which music affects emotions and the neurological aspects of the brain.

There are many attempts to curb and slow down aging, some which work more than others. Most people need glasses eventually, but I have worn them since I began school. There is a lot of fear of the aging process and this probably impacts upon mental health strongly. There is the transhumanist movement which is about slowing down the processes and extending life almost indefinitely but I am sceptical of how far it will go and it may be for the elite wealthy alone, making them like an a master race of elders/'gods'.

Another aspect which may be involved in the body form and life experiences is the factor of karma. It is meant to be the law of cause and effect. It may be that the way it works is that rather than cause and effect being at a strictly material level, it goes so much deeper, with the subconscious or oversoul leading to the manifestation of life in the outer aspects of life, including bodily form.

As one flips fast to what's in the sphere of memory (saññā), good to simply look rather then to rationalize, good householder.

So what about the eye? Real, or object to change? Control-able? What about form? Ear? Decays? Under ones control? Sound: any lasting, any real? Watch, listen direct! What about nose and smell? Any smell real, lasting, able to control? Tongue, taste? Body, touch at the body? Mind? Ideas?

What about touch on the senses? Any lasting, real, under control? Any touch like the last, previous? What about the feeling arising on touch? Real or different in each case? What about perception (memory) arising on touch? What about consciousness arising on touch?

"Scanning" through it and giving up of which isn't real, lasting, therefore burdensome, therefore not proper to regard as me, myself or I.

Getting through the gross one soon arrives at virtue. Arrived at real virtue, as one would hardly do wrong for what of less worth, one gains freedom of remorse, better identity, higher, and is able to go deeper/higher, gains required concentration to see through the net.

The senses are complex and the means of perceiving and experiencing reality. Some people are more comfortable with being touched than others. The one aspect which I liked about the lockdown restrictions was guidelines about measures for distancing as I don't like people invading my body space when I am walking around in shops and in the street.

Different people are more tuned into different senses and in different ways. I do have some eye problems but in my right eye which has worse vision than the other I see a lot of extremely interesting imagery when I close my eyes. Apparently, there is a reason for this, and it is connected to the phosphenes in the retina. But, the outer and inner mind's eye are both important. Oliver Sacks is a very important writer for thinking about all the unusual phenomena of the senses, including synthasaesia. I have read that synthasaesia is connected physiologically to the way in which the eyes and ears develop from the same nobule initially. However, the whole idea of perception by the senses raises so much question about whether the self is merely the body or whether there are any senses which go beyond the physical basis of sensory perception.

[JackDaydream]

Extra:
I had a teacher at school who used to say, "You have to lose yourself in order to find yourself'....

One of my favorite adventure and exploration books is The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Gerrard. Cherry-Gerrard was a member of the ill-fated Falcon-Scott race to the south Pole. However, the titular "worst journey" refers to a winter trek Gerrard and one companion made to find the Emperor Penguin's nesting gorunds. The final paragraph of this book speaks to your teacher's comment:

Exploration is the physical expression of the Intellectual Passion.

And I tell you, if you have the desire for knowledge and the power to give it physical expression, go out and explore. If you are a brave man you will do nothing: if you are fearful you may do much, for none but cowards have need to prove their bravery. Some will tell you that you are mad, and nearly all will say, "What is the use?" For we are a nation of shopkeepers, and no shopkeeper will look at research which does not promise him a financial return within a year. And so you will sledge nearly alone, but those with whom you sledge will not be shopkeepers: that is worth a good deal. If you march your Winter Journeys you will have your reward, so long as all you want is a penguin's egg.

The whole idea of getting lost and finding oneself is interesting literally and metaphorically. Having got lost in real life on many occasions, it does feel like a wilderness shamanic journey. My worst experience was when I was talking to my mother on the phone late at night a few years ago. I had caught the wrong bus and was lost in the countryside. I was meandering around and found by at a railway station which I remembered as Radcastle Station. I got picked up by the transport police and taken to A and E. I had to be assessed by the psychiatric liaison team and I was described as a 'disheveled male', but I think the concern was in case I was planning suicide at the railway and I wasn't. Still, I had to phone my work manager because I was still at the hospital in morning. When I told her I was at Radcastle Station she told me, 'There is no such place.'. When I searched on Google I came to the conclusion that it was probably Hsckbridge Station, although I was left with the sense of having stepped into some mysterious portal, like the clock striking 13 in 'Tom's Midnight Garden'. I am inclined to think that the symbolic aspects of being lost are important as part of the human journey and in relation to the depths of philosophical searching.