What is Self-Knowledge and Awareness?

[Agent Smyth]

Awareness, what more can we say about it? There seem to be at least one non-obvious way to frame it. Biologically? Perhaps, can't see clearly from where I'm at. Someone surely has a better view.

The nature of awareness itself and how to frame it is the question? That is why I wrote the thread really, because in the context of the dominance of the physicalist model and determinism it is questionable what significance is placed on awareness at all. The whole approach of the behaviourist model of BF Skinner and the idea of consciousness as an illusion, as suggested by Daniel Dennett seems to rule out the importance of awareness, especially reflective self consciousness.

This is questionable though because all knowledge starts from the awareness of self awareness as recognised by the phenomenologists. Also, within philosophy as a whole the awareness of the 'I', or 'soul' was the starting point. Looking within is recognised by models such as Buddhism and spiritual models of metaphysics and epistemology, especially in relation to the value of meditation. However, the dominance of physicalism and determinism does seem to be going in the direction more of going away from the idea of focus on consciousness as a seat of awareness and importance.

Meditate on this, I must.

Over the years I've come to what's to me an astonishing conclusion - spirituality matters. Philosophically, you already know what that means. From a religious point of view, we've made a great deal of progress but that's being dismissed as tosh by some. Frankly, me is puzzled, very puzzled indeed.

Generally, I have always gravitated towards spirituality. However, I see it in the broadest sense, including areas of comparative religion and I try to keep one foot in science and philosophy to avoid becoming a psychonaut. Before I began writing on philosophy sites I used to spend a lot of time reading loads of books on aspects of the esoteric and I do see that as importance. I find the transpersonal tradition, including writers like Ken Wilber, as being extremely useful for being able to combine philosophy, psychology and spirituality in a synthetic way. Also, I do find reading books by Buddhist authors as helpful, because such writers usually manage to avoid some of the negative clutter of Abrahamic religions, and allow for appreciation of spirituality as the mindful art of the cultivation of inner experience.

Talking and writing about ideas is also a way of reflective thinking and sharing them about them rather getting lost in a soliptist vacuum of perplexity. That may be where intersubjectivity may be so useful. It does seem that people come with such different dispositions, both with regard to the importance of philosophy and the gravitation towards the spiritual. It may be that so much of the guilt and politics of religion has led people to be biased towards spirituality, as well as a dismissal of the value of inner aspects of experience. However, the value of meditation and mindfulness is strong, especially within psychology.

Somwhere in there, mon ami, is a truth that's been missed by many. The tragedy then unfolds or perhaps is unfolding as we speak. Who's to say what'll happen as the years pass by. All is not lost though except Jane is no longer Jane so to speak. Agree?

[JackDaydream]

If knowledge was only objective, then subjective ideas would eventually be thought of as facts that are neglected. Like, less important facts, but still facts. That way, subjectivity would simply be the manner in which people value different objective facts, and the ability to perceive only a certain number of facts (possibilities) at one time.

The trouble with my definition, however, is that phenomenological experiences seem to arise from existence. If entire nature was just a collection of facts and potentials, then how could anything 'new' arise, and how do we even define 'new' if it is not subjective?

The problem also is that 'newness' could simply be a potential fact coming into existence so that the capacity for facts is unlimited. But then, if everything that ever existed was thought to be objective, how would we know the nature of the human experience as we perceive things in variable forms?

A thought could be totally unique to a single observer, and never exist again in the whole of human history. If it is noumenal and beyond thought, bit it is totally unique, then that creates a further problem in definition, as it is only our minds that define what is objective.

Maybe I'm struggling a bit with this topic.

I think it is a tricky topic really and I do struggle with thinking about it. Many may see the issue of self awareness as being more the domain of psychology but I see it as an aspect of phenomenological questioning as well. It does relate to the whole issue of what are thoughts and where do they come from?

Your own thinking about the issue of uniqueness and originality of thoughts is important here. That is because some ideas, especially historical ones, seem important because they were presented in a particular way at a certain point in time, but as for whether there are any unique thoughts which can be exclusive to one person is a separate matter. That is where selves have interconnected or universal aspects. In evolution, signs, symbols and language were the evolutionary elements of the architecture of thought. It has a biological element but it may also incorporate Hegel's understanding of 'spirit' as the historical development of ideas within human culture.

[JackDaydream]

The nature of awareness itself and how to frame it is the question? That is why I wrote the thread really, because in the context of the dominance of the physicalist model and determinism it is questionable what significance is placed on awareness at all. The whole approach of the behaviourist model of BF Skinner and the idea of consciousness as an illusion, as suggested by Daniel Dennett seems to rule out the importance of awareness, especially reflective self consciousness.

This is questionable though because all knowledge starts from the awareness of self awareness as recognised by the phenomenologists. Also, within philosophy as a whole the awareness of the 'I', or 'soul' was the starting point. Looking within is recognised by models such as Buddhism and spiritual models of metaphysics and epistemology, especially in relation to the value of meditation. However, the dominance of physicalism and determinism does seem to be going in the direction more of going away from the idea of focus on consciousness as a seat of awareness and importance.

Meditate on this, I must.

Over the years I've come to what's to me an astonishing conclusion - spirituality matters. Philosophically, you already know what that means. From a religious point of view, we've made a great deal of progress but that's being dismissed as tosh by some. Frankly, me is puzzled, very puzzled indeed.

Generally, I have always gravitated towards spirituality. However, I see it in the broadest sense, including areas of comparative religion and I try to keep one foot in science and philosophy to avoid becoming a psychonaut. Before I began writing on philosophy sites I used to spend a lot of time reading loads of books on aspects of the esoteric and I do see that as importance. I find the transpersonal tradition, including writers like Ken Wilber, as being extremely useful for being able to combine philosophy, psychology and spirituality in a synthetic way. Also, I do find reading books by Buddhist authors as helpful, because such writers usually manage to avoid some of the negative clutter of Abrahamic religions, and allow for appreciation of spirituality as the mindful art of the cultivation of inner experience.

Talking and writing about ideas is also a way of reflective thinking and sharing them about them rather getting lost in a soliptist vacuum of perplexity. That may be where intersubjectivity may be so useful. It does seem that people come with such different dispositions, both with regard to the importance of philosophy and the gravitation towards the spiritual. It may be that so much of the guilt and politics of religion has led people to be biased towards spirituality, as well as a dismissal of the value of inner aspects of experience. However, the value of meditation and mindfulness is strong, especially within psychology.

Somwhere in there, mon ami, is a truth that's been missed by many. The tragedy then unfolds or perhaps is unfolding as we speak. Who's to say what'll happen as the years pass by. All is not lost though except Jane is no longer Jane so to speak. Agree?

It does seem that there is an increasing move away to the value of subjectivity as aspects of spirituality and awareness as states of consciousness. This even occurs as an emphasis within psychology, with meditation being seen more as a form of relaxation and therapies as coping skills rather than the cultivation of unique personhood and creative actualisation.

It may be related to objectification of people as numbers. Within industrialisation there was an emphasis on mechanistic conformity. It may have appeared that the information age would leave more opportunities for exploration. To some extent it does give possibilities but with increasing automation there is so much competition that there is a danger than the value of the individual will be lost in terms of their subjective inner life, especially as people begin to compete with machines. It represents the opposite to what happened in the emergence of Western individualism as a zombie state. The idea of consciousness as an illusory may make this happen potentially.

[Agent Smyth]

Over the years I've come to what's to me an astonishing conclusion - spirituality matters. Philosophically, you already know what that means. From a religious point of view, we've made a great deal of progress but that's being dismissed as tosh by some. Frankly, me is puzzled, very puzzled indeed.

Generally, I have always gravitated towards spirituality. However, I see it in the broadest sense, including areas of comparative religion and I try to keep one foot in science and philosophy to avoid becoming a psychonaut. Before I began writing on philosophy sites I used to spend a lot of time reading loads of books on aspects of the esoteric and I do see that as importance. I find the transpersonal tradition, including writers like Ken Wilber, as being extremely useful for being able to combine philosophy, psychology and spirituality in a synthetic way. Also, I do find reading books by Buddhist authors as helpful, because such writers usually manage to avoid some of the negative clutter of Abrahamic religions, and allow for appreciation of spirituality as the mindful art of the cultivation of inner experience.

Talking and writing about ideas is also a way of reflective thinking and sharing them about them rather getting lost in a soliptist vacuum of perplexity. That may be where intersubjectivity may be so useful. It does seem that people come with such different dispositions, both with regard to the importance of philosophy and the gravitation towards the spiritual. It may be that so much of the guilt and politics of religion has led people to be biased towards spirituality, as well as a dismissal of the value of inner aspects of experience. However, the value of meditation and mindfulness is strong, especially within psychology.

Somwhere in there, mon ami, is a truth that's been missed by many. The tragedy then unfolds or perhaps is unfolding as we speak. Who's to say what'll happen as the years pass by. All is not lost though except Jane is no longer Jane so to speak. Agree?

It does seem that there is an increasing move away to the value of subjectivity as aspects of spirituality and awareness as states of consciousness. This even occurs as an emphasis within psychology, with meditation being seen more as a form of relaxation and therapies as coping skills rather than the cultivation of unique personhood and creative actualisation.

It may be related to objectification of people as numbers. Within industrialisation there was an emphasis on mechanistic conformity. It may have appeared that the information age would leave more opportunities for exploration. To some extent it does give possibilities but with increasing automation there is so much competition that there is a danger than the value of the individual will be lost in terms of their subjective inner life, especially as people begin to compete with machines. It represents the opposite to what happened in the emergence of Western individualism as a zombie state. The idea of consciousness as an illusory may make this happen potentially.

Oui, we're heading towards a showdown between man and machine - it seems inevitable given the salient points of your post. What does a beaver have to say I wonder about the Armageddon that's coming down the pike?

[JackDaydream]

Generally, I have always gravitated towards spirituality. However, I see it in the broadest sense, including areas of comparative religion and I try to keep one foot in science and philosophy to avoid becoming a psychonaut. Before I began writing on philosophy sites I used to spend a lot of time reading loads of books on aspects of the esoteric and I do see that as importance. I find the transpersonal tradition, including writers like Ken Wilber, as being extremely useful for being able to combine philosophy, psychology and spirituality in a synthetic way. Also, I do find reading books by Buddhist authors as helpful, because such writers usually manage to avoid some of the negative clutter of Abrahamic religions, and allow for appreciation of spirituality as the mindful art of the cultivation of inner experience.

Talking and writing about ideas is also a way of reflective thinking and sharing them about them rather getting lost in a soliptist vacuum of perplexity. That may be where intersubjectivity may be so useful. It does seem that people come with such different dispositions, both with regard to the importance of philosophy and the gravitation towards the spiritual. It may be that so much of the guilt and politics of religion has led people to be biased towards spirituality, as well as a dismissal of the value of inner aspects of experience. However, the value of meditation and mindfulness is strong, especially within psychology.

Somwhere in there, mon ami, is a truth that's been missed by many. The tragedy then unfolds or perhaps is unfolding as we speak. Who's to say what'll happen as the years pass by. All is not lost though except Jane is no longer Jane so to speak. Agree?

It does seem that there is an increasing move away to the value of subjectivity as aspects of spirituality and awareness as states of consciousness. This even occurs as an emphasis within psychology, with meditation being seen more as a form of relaxation and therapies as coping skills rather than the cultivation of unique personhood and creative actualisation.

It may be related to objectification of people as numbers. Within industrialisation there was an emphasis on mechanistic conformity. It may have appeared that the information age would leave more opportunities for exploration. To some extent it does give possibilities but with increasing automation there is so much competition that there is a danger than the value of the individual will be lost in terms of their subjective inner life, especially as people begin to compete with machines. It represents the opposite to what happened in the emergence of Western individualism as a zombie state. The idea of consciousness as an illusory may make this happen potentially.

Oui, we're heading towards a showdown between man and machine - it seems inevitable given the salient points of your post. What does a beaver have to say I wonder about the Armageddon that's coming down the pike?

I have always feared the end of the world and what it may mean. However, keeping the thread on topic one idea which I have often thought about is the idea of a personal apocalypse. That would be like a battle between the inner psychic forces, inner war. With the armargeddon _ personal, collective, inner or outer, it is also a question of what happens afterwards? Is it the end or a new beginning?

Of course, I am being rather gothic, and Jungian, but I see dark fantasy and dark thinking as connected to the inner aspects of apocalypse. And, there may be parallels between what is going on in aspects of the personal and collective psyche, as the battle with dark forces...

[Agent Smyth]

Somwhere in there, mon ami, is a truth that's been missed by many. The tragedy then unfolds or perhaps is unfolding as we speak. Who's to say what'll happen as the years pass by. All is not lost though except Jane is no longer Jane so to speak. Agree?

It does seem that there is an increasing move away to the value of subjectivity as aspects of spirituality and awareness as states of consciousness. This even occurs as an emphasis within psychology, with meditation being seen more as a form of relaxation and therapies as coping skills rather than the cultivation of unique personhood and creative actualisation.

It may be related to objectification of people as numbers. Within industrialisation there was an emphasis on mechanistic conformity. It may have appeared that the information age would leave more opportunities for exploration. To some extent it does give possibilities but with increasing automation there is so much competition that there is a danger than the value of the individual will be lost in terms of their subjective inner life, especially as people begin to compete with machines. It represents the opposite to what happened in the emergence of Western individualism as a zombie state. The idea of consciousness as an illusory may make this happen potentially.

Oui, we're heading towards a showdown between man and machine - it seems inevitable given the salient points of your post. What does a beaver have to say I wonder about the Armageddon that's coming down the pike?

I have always feared the end of the world and what it may mean. However, keeping the thread on topic one idea which I have often thought about is the idea of a personal apocalypse. That would be like a battle between the inner psychic forces, inner war. With the armargeddon _ personal, collective, inner or outer, it is also a question of what happens afterwards? Is it the end or a new beginning?

Of course, I am being rather gothic, and Jungian, but I see dark fantasy and dark thinking as connected to the inner aspects of apocalypse. And, there may be parallels between what is going on in aspects of the personal and collective psyche, as the battle with dark forces...

I kinda sorta get where you're coming from. A very interestin' point of view I must say. I wonder now whether we're not just froggish in our nature - croaking incessantly on rainy days, hopin' the ladies will give us a chance to pass on our genes.

[JackDaydream]

It does seem that there is an increasing move away to the value of subjectivity as aspects of spirituality and awareness as states of consciousness. This even occurs as an emphasis within psychology, with meditation being seen more as a form of relaxation and therapies as coping skills rather than the cultivation of unique personhood and creative actualisation.

It may be related to objectification of people as numbers. Within industrialisation there was an emphasis on mechanistic conformity. It may have appeared that the information age would leave more opportunities for exploration. To some extent it does give possibilities but with increasing automation there is so much competition that there is a danger than the value of the individual will be lost in terms of their subjective inner life, especially as people begin to compete with machines. It represents the opposite to what happened in the emergence of Western individualism as a zombie state. The idea of consciousness as an illusory may make this happen potentially.

Oui, we're heading towards a showdown between man and machine - it seems inevitable given the salient points of your post. What does a beaver have to say I wonder about the Armageddon that's coming down the pike?

I have always feared the end of the world and what it may mean. However, keeping the thread on topic one idea which I have often thought about is the idea of a personal apocalypse. That would be like a battle between the inner psychic forces, inner war. With the armargeddon _ personal, collective, inner or outer, it is also a question of what happens afterwards? Is it the end or a new beginning?

Of course, I am being rather gothic, and Jungian, but I see dark fantasy and dark thinking as connected to the inner aspects of apocalypse. And, there may be parallels between what is going on in aspects of the personal and collective psyche, as the battle with dark forces...

I kinda sorta get where you're coming from. A very interestin' point of view I must say. I wonder now whether we're not just froggish in our nature - croaking incessantly on rainy days, hopin' the ladies will give us a chance to pass on our genes.

It's a serious matter, and I come from a background in mental healthcare, where the extremes of 'falling apart' occur. However, I do see the whole area as being about self understanding, integrity of the ego, as well as a grounding in philosophy. There is the division identified by Freud of neurosis and psychosis. So much suffering in daily life of depression and anxiety is of this nature. However, in the extremes of 'psychosis', which I have witnessed the understanding of the nature of 'reality'

Most of us have our 'rainy days', and I definitely find that some days seem to flow so much better than others. I am not sure if it is about mindset or deeper aspects flowing from the 'stream of consciousness itself'. I find the idea of 'the dark night of the soul', which was spoken of initially by St John of the Cross, and, much later, by the transpersonal philosopher, Thomas Moore. It may be that the encounter with the 'dark night of the soul' as an aspect of inner experience itself may be important for psychological integrity and in relation to the symbolic threat of the psychological apocalypse, and the ongoing balance of divided aspects of the human psyche.

[RJG]

True self-awareness is a myth. It is logically impossible to experience oneself (on at least 2 counts).

Firstly, we can ONLY experience "bodily reactions" (sensations/thoughts/feelings), that's it, nothing more. We can't experience actual things, or selfs, themselves. Therefore, true "self-awareness" is logically impossible.

I agree that awareness of the self is limited but don't see it as impossible. I suppose that it does come with the underlying question of what is the self?

Any notion/concept/awareness of “self” (or “I”) can only exist as a ‘thought(s)’ (a bodily reaction). It is the ‘thought’ (of self) that we are actually aware of, not the ‘self’, himself.

It may not be an entity in the way in which the way that the 'soul' was used to be, but it is the basis of subjectivity itself and the source of reflective consciousness.

Although it may be the “source of reflective consciousness”, this source cannot logically detect/sense himself.

• “Pick up a stone. Tap it on any object you wish. Now make it tap itself, …it can’t be done.”

[Agent Smyth]

Oui, we're heading towards a showdown between man and machine - it seems inevitable given the salient points of your post. What does a beaver have to say I wonder about the Armageddon that's coming down the pike?

I have always feared the end of the world and what it may mean. However, keeping the thread on topic one idea which I have often thought about is the idea of a personal apocalypse. That would be like a battle between the inner psychic forces, inner war. With the armargeddon _ personal, collective, inner or outer, it is also a question of what happens afterwards? Is it the end or a new beginning?

Of course, I am being rather gothic, and Jungian, but I see dark fantasy and dark thinking as connected to the inner aspects of apocalypse. And, there may be parallels between what is going on in aspects of the personal and collective psyche, as the battle with dark forces...

I kinda sorta get where you're coming from. A very interestin' point of view I must say. I wonder now whether we're not just froggish in our nature - croaking incessantly on rainy days, hopin' the ladies will give us a chance to pass on our genes.

It's a serious matter, and I come from a background in mental healthcare, where the extremes of 'falling apart' occur. However, I do see the whole area as being about self understanding, integrity of the ego, as well as a grounding in philosophy. There is the division identified by Freud of neurosis and psychosis. So much suffering in daily life of depression and anxiety is of this nature. However, in the extremes of 'psychosis', which I have witnessed the understanding of the nature of 'reality'

Most of us have our 'rainy days', and I definitely find that some days seem to flow so much better than others. I am not sure if it is about mindset or deeper aspects flowing from the 'stream of consciousness itself'. I find the idea of 'the dark night of the soul', which was spoken of initially by St John of the Cross, and, much later, by the transpersonal philosopher, Thomas Moore. It may be that the encounter with the 'dark night of the soul' as an aspect of inner experience itself may be important for psychological integrity and in relation to the symbolic threat of the psychological apocalypse, and the ongoing balance of divided aspects of the human psyche.

You're well-informed and hats off to the depth of yer analysis.

[mrdim]

Your own thinking about the issue of uniqueness and originality of thoughts is important here. That is because some ideas, especially historical ones, seem important because they were presented in a particular way at a certain point in time...

And the interesting thing to me, is that people will mimic others and their way of presenting the world. If you think about biologically shared aspects of consciousness, or the collective unconscious, then perhaps we mimic simply to bring us back to a shared thought, memory, or experience.

If we mimic nature (biomimicry) or the cosmos (not sure of the name for that), then by subjectively experiencing things, we would be going through the process of rediscovering things about ourselves collectively.

It is like if I objectively know that a cat could be black, white, brown, etc, but I forget the colour of the last cat I saw. I could remember again in the future and rediscover the objective fact, but it is subjective through experience.

Still, I'm not convinced that my suggestion is ultimately scientific, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

[JackDaydream]

True self-awareness is a myth. It is logically impossible to experience oneself (on at least 2 counts).

Firstly, we can ONLY experience "bodily reactions" (sensations/thoughts/feelings), that's it, nothing more. We can't experience actual things, or selfs, themselves. Therefore, true "self-awareness" is logically impossible.

I agree that awareness of the self is limited but don't see it as impossible. I suppose that it does come with the underlying question of what is the self?

Any notion/concept/awareness of “self” (or “I”) can only exist as a ‘thought(s)’ (a bodily reaction). It is the ‘thought’ (of self) that we are actually aware of, not the ‘self’, himself.

It may not be an entity in the way in which the way that the 'soul' was used to be, but it is the basis of subjectivity itself and the source of reflective consciousness.

Although it may be the “source of reflective consciousness”, this source cannot logically detect/sense himself.

• “Pick up a stone. Tap it on any object you wish. Now make it tap itself, …it can’t be done.”

It is true that the the self itself is not the actual source of thoughts or sensations, as this would involve the dualistic split of mind and body, missing the nature of embodiment. Thoughts flow in from the stream of consciousness which can be experienced in techniques of mindfulness of thoughts. The self can be described as a category of experience, especially as it the reflective basis for making choices.

[JackDaydream]

Your own thinking about the issue of uniqueness and originality of thoughts is important here. That is because some ideas, especially historical ones, seem important because they were presented in a particular way at a certain point in time...

And the interesting thing to me, is that people will mimic others and their way of presenting the world. If you think about biologically shared aspects of consciousness, or the collective unconscious, then perhaps we mimic simply to bring us back to a shared thought, memory, or experience.

If we mimic nature (biomimicry) or the cosmos (not sure of the name for that), then by subjectively experiencing things, we would be going through the process of rediscovering things about ourselves collectively.

It is like if I objectively know that a cat could be black, white, brown, etc, but I forget the colour of the last cat I saw. I could remember again in the future and rediscover the objective fact, but it is subjective through experience.

Still, I'm not convinced that my suggestion is ultimately scientific, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

The tendency to mimic is related to learning processes and in science, the biologist, Rupert Sheldrake, in his idea of morphic resonance, describes processes of repeated patterns in nature, including copying what is seen and as invisible morphic fields. His research into the establishment of patterns does correspond with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious..Many dispute the existence of the collective unconscious, saying that it is not scientific. However, the argument for its existence is an underlying universality of symbolism and mythic structure and archetypes which are realised by the individual self through experiences. Of course, each person is unique but there are correspondences between the development of images and concepts.