False Individual

[27x]

I read somewere recently that people are not unique because:

1.People are defined by their experiences.
2.The greatest influence are people; even people who are isolated for years could not have existed without the influence of other people.
3.Our memories are made up of the community around us.
4.There are no individuals, only the society.

I disagree because:

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.If we can create imaginary people, and believe they are real, then we can influence ourselves away from society.

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.People around me are made up of what I do as well.
3. If I can influence enough people, then I can essentially change everyone.
4.To influence people, I need to make them believe that my ideals are in their best interest.
5.If I can give up my,"I want" which is my faulty self, then I can think as the community.
6.If I can think as the community, then I can think in the best interests of everyone.
7.If I am thinking as everyone, then I can influence anyone.  

[whynaut]

I_27_04

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.People around me are made up of what I do as well.
3. If I can influence enough people, then I can essentially change everyone.
4.To influence people, I need to make them believe that my ideals are in their best interest.
5.If I can give up my,"I want" which is my faulty self, then I can think as the community.
6.If I can think as the community, then I can think in the best interests of everyone.
7.If I am thinking as everyone, then I can influence anyone.

Well, if you are thinking for everyone then you are not thinking for yourself and you are once again bound by society.

If you influence others, then they are not thinking for themselves but are bound to society because you are a part of society.

If you could convince people that your ideas are in their best interest then you are playing with people's pre-made notions of society. Notions like safety, prosperity, etc.

I_27_04

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.If we can create imaginary people, and believe they are real, then we can influence ourselves away from society.

This, however, intrigues me. The idea of creating ones own institutions. It the closest things I can see to freedom.  

[27x]

whynaut

I_27_04

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.People around me are made up of what I do as well.
3. If I can influence enough people, then I can essentially change everyone.
4.To influence people, I need to make them believe that my ideals are in their best interest.
5.If I can give up my,"I want" which is my faulty self, then I can think as the community.
6.If I can think as the community, then I can think in the best interests of everyone.
7.If I am thinking as everyone, then I can influence anyone.

Well, if you are thinking for everyone then you are not thinking for yourself and you are once again bound by society.

If you influence others, then they are not thinking for themselves but are bound to society because you are a part of society.

If you could convince people that your ideas are in their best interest then you are playing with people's pre-made notions of society. Notions like safety, prosperity, etc.

I_27_04

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.If we can create imaginary people, and believe they are real, then we can influence ourselves away from society.

This, however, intrigues me. The idea of creating ones own institutions. It the closest things I can see to freedom.

The problemb with the latter is.

1.I am creating imaginary people to influence me.
2.The one who is creating them is me.
3.I am already tainted with society.
4.The things I create will be tainted.

However you could see it like this.

If you have a number 0.99999999999.... Then some people say that it is actually one, because for one, the number one to add onto the end is so small, that it might be zero. Secondly, if it isn't zero, it is too small to count as a plausible number. I.e. if you scraped the smallest part possible from a tree, you could still safely call it a whole tree.

The more this false society influences me, the more they become separate from the real society, untill they basically arn't tainted.

The problemb is this, if I hold a small community of people in my mind, and communicate with them long enough to the point that they have influence on me as real people, then these people, in turn, could start to form seperate concousnesses within my mind.

Because of this, it's difficult to say that I wouldn't end up like Dr. Jekel, and Mr. Hyde, excepting the bodily transformations.

Imagine this scenario for example.

1.I create an imaginary society of great thinkers, who are focused on helpign society in real life.
2.I can host society within myself, without being subject to it, because I am hosting people who want to help society, instead of attatching myself to the interests of other people.  

[Oniko-inuki]

27x

I read somewere recently that people are not unique because:

1.People are defined by their experiences.
2.The greatest influence are people; even people who are isolated for years could not have existed without the influence of other people.
3.Our memories are made up of the community around us.
4.There are no individuals, only the society.

I think that the problem with this argument is that each person is influenced differently in manner and degree by the people and society around them, thereby making each one individual and unique from every other person in their society.

27x

I disagree because:

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.If we can create imaginary people, and believe they are real, then we can influence ourselves away from society.

1.We are made up of the people around us.
2.People around me are made up of what I do as well.
3. If I can influence enough people, then I can essentially change everyone.
4.To influence people, I need to make them believe that my ideals are in their best interest.
5.If I can give up my,"I want" which is my faulty self, then I can think as the community.
6.If I can think as the community, then I can think in the best interests of everyone.
7.If I am thinking as everyone, then I can influence anyone.

Interesting that you view the self as faulty, could the community not be faulty? Isn't that the reason that mob mentality is dangerous?

Also, cannot a demagogue use the community for their own self-interests rather then subjerting the self for the betterment of everyone (as it sounds you say in 6)?  

[27x]

I'm just basically just combining my studies of buddhism, and what I've read in zuth spake zarathustra.

Buddha said this, "My mind is always changing. I am not the person I was five years ago, any more than I am the person I was a moment ago. Therefore, it is wrong to call ones self a self, because it will no longer be who you are in the future. There is no permanant self."

Neizche was always talking about how proud people are. He says that people speak and act automatically, without hardly thinking, and in thus doing, they are really just mindless. That is why people get caught up in their own desires and beliefs. The true way to be free of this was to get past the, "I, Self, and the I want," and decide what is actually important beyond your own virtues, but what the truth is.

The normal self is just somone who is so used to retrieving information about how they usually act, that they usually don't need to think before acting.

The second self, is the one who thinks before all actions, and therefore can make any action desired.

If I abandoned my autonomous self, then my thought self can be whatever I decide it to be.

So what I think is, that if I never, unless nececary to my immediate survival, think about my own desires and needs, and only think as the community, then I'm not contaminated with my own self, and I can truely help people.

However, since I will be thinking as society, and not as my true self, the part of me that was made up of the interactions between other people will be inactive. The question is then, if my entire personality is the desire to benefit society, does that in turn make my personality a part of society.

I don't think so.  

[Oniko-inuki]

27x

I'm just basically just combining my studies of buddhism, and what I've read in zuth spake zarathustra.

Buddha said this, "My mind is always changing. I am not the person I was five years ago, any more than I am the person I was a moment ago. Therefore, it is wrong to call ones self a self, because it will no longer be who you are in the future. There is no permanant self."

I disagree with this. The self, as I understand it, is a collection of memories and experiences, add to these memories and I am more then who I was, but I am still that person because I still contain all that that person was. Even if you take away memories too an extent I would still be who I was, I am forever forgetting small things, and it is only with taking away large portions of memory, Alzheimer's for example, that someone can really say 'he's not who he was.'

If there was no permanent self then no one could be guilty of committing a crime for they are not the same person that committed the crime even as soon as the moment after it passed.

27x

Neizche was always talking about how proud people are. He says that people speak and act automatically, without hardly thinking, and in thus doing, they are really just mindless. That is why people get caught up in their own desires and beliefs. The true way to be free of this was to get past the, "I, Self, and the I want," and decide what is actually important beyond your own virtues, but what the truth is.

The normal self is just somone who is so used to retrieving information about how they usually act, that they usually don't need to think before acting.

The second self, is the one who thinks before all actions, and therefore can make any action desired.

I'm finding this argument hard to follow. Tell me if I'm understanding this properly; we each have two selves, one, you call the normal self, that always acts without thinking absorbed in the base wants and needs (you add beliefs but I don't see how this self could have beliefs without the reasoning function). And a Second Self, that thinks before all actions and thus... here I'm lost. Simply thinking about an action does not make it desired, that is a function of the normal self.

Are you familiar with the Wise mind? (I want to say Aristole, but I'm not sure and I don't have the time right now to dig it up) It's the point where the Emotional Mind (your normal self) and the Reasoning Mind (your second self) are combined so that you want to do what logic guides you to do.

I have to go now but will get to the rest of the post later.  

[Oniko-inuki]

Actually forget the Wise Mind/Rational Mind stuff; I can't find my references and all google turns up is the modern psychologist's version which is not what I'm referring to.

27x

If I abandoned my autonomous self, then my thought self can be whatever I decide it to be.

So what I think is, that if I never, unless nececary to my immediate survival, think about my own desires and needs, and only think as the community, then I'm not contaminated with my own self, and I can truely help people.

However, since I will be thinking as society, and not as my true self, the part of me that was made up of the interactions between other people will be inactive. The question is then, if my entire personality is the desire to benefit society, does that in turn make my personality a part of society.

I don't think so.

I have two words for you: mob mentality. In this state the individual is totally subsumed by the group (re: society) and generally not for the better or to help people.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

I think we are all different because we all come from different areas and we are all socialized differently and by different people as well as being infulenced by ourselves and our own thought regarding certain nature.

I don't think we could be identical when things like our interests and our ideas and ways of thinking vary from person to person.  

[Oniko-inuki]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

I think we are all different because we all come from different areas and we are all socialized differently and by different people as well as being infulenced by ourselves and our own thought regarding certain nature.

I don't think we could be identical when things like our interests and our ideas and ways of thinking vary from person to person.

How does one influence one's own self?  

[Smartteaser192]

Oniko-inuki

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

I think we are all different because we all come from different areas and we are all socialized differently and by different people as well as being infulenced by ourselves and our own thought regarding certain nature.

I don't think we could be identical when things like our interests and our ideas and ways of thinking vary from person to person.

How does one influence one's own self?

Talk to yourself, converse with yourself.