Whatcha readin?
- There is no essence of the self, lying like a vein of gold under the chaos of experiences and chemistry. Everything is fluid, and we must understand the human organism as a succession of self-conditions that replace or choose each other.
Andrew Solomon, The Noonday Demon. Originally in English, but I'm reading in a German translation, so I translated it back. I should find the text in English.
WHOO another good use for my newfangled notes system! —— Recently noted and good: “Perfectionism may look good in his shiny shoes but he’s a little bit of an asshole and no one invites him to their pool parties.” - Ze Frank “Traveling is like flirting with life. It’s like saying, ‘I would stay and love you, but I have to go.’ “ - Lisa St Aubin de Téran “The best way to overcome it [the fear of death]—so at least it seems to me—is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal, until bit by bit the walls of the ego recede, and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life. An individual human existence should be like a river: small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past rocks and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue. And if, with the decay of vitality, weariness increases, the thought of rest will not be unwelcome. I should wish to die while still at work, knowing that others will carry on what I can no longer do and content in the thought that what was possible has been done.” - Betrand Russel —— Less recent, but great: “Just because you’re winning a game doesn’t mean it’s a good game.” - Seth Godin “Only live with what you've done, and try in the future to only do what you're happy to live with. That's the whole game, soak, that's all there is." - Carl Marsalis In Thirteen by Richard K. Morgan “The more polarized an issue gets, the more its consequences become secondary to the desire to have your camp win.” - Lilliana Mason “Civilizations die from suicide, not from murder.” - Toynbee
I'm finding myself caught up on the more impersonal aspect of this quote. What do you think Russel meant with that?...gradually wider and more impersonal...
My impression is that it has to do with the role of one's ego in life, considering the sentences that follow. I think that a large part of getting older and wiser is to better understand your place in the universe as merely one small part of an impersonal universe, as opposed to feeling like you're the center of the universe. I think we hold way to dearly on to the idea that it is only our experience that matters. So I interpret "impersonal" as less about oneself or one person. "We insist on ourself as individual agents in the world - it is the story we trap ourselves in."
Let's take it apart. He's talking about overcoming the fear of a personal death -- the death of your own ego, being, memory, identity. If one is afraid of death, one is afraid of ceasing to be. One asks, "How can the world exist without me?" It's kind of unimaginable. So, it seems Russell is talking about losing your personal identity and having the Zen hotdog: One with Everything. How can you fear death if you experience yourself as part of everything? He says as much in the last sentence. It sounds possible in theory. On the other hand, one could "Rage, rage, against the dying of the light."The best way to overcome it [the fear of death]—so at least it seems to me—is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal, until bit by bit the walls of the ego recede, and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life.
Since you asked --
I thought of the Comey book as well. A comment in an interview with Comey jumped out at me: Also, Timothy Snyder, in On Tyranny: "Don't obey in advance."Leaders like President Bush and President Obama have, when they're making hard decisions, external reference points. They think about a religious tradition or philosophy or history of the law. My experience with Donald Trump is that the only reference point is internal: 'What will give me the affirmation I crave?' . . . That is disturbing in a leader.
From flagamuffin's post. This hits home.The fact is that, as Hume said in The Natural History of Religion, "it is not possible for us, by our most chimerical wishes, to form the idea of a station or situation altogether desirable." The reason is that we desire incompatible things. Even if every other cause of human misery were removed, and even if only a single person were in question, that person's desires, being inconsistent, would still be incapable of satisfaction. Remold this sorry scheme of things exactly to your heart's desires: then even if, by some miracle, those desires were compatible with one another, you would sooner or later be bored with the result. In other words, the universal human hankering for novelty would, at some stage, intervene and unsettle all.
(I am working through Thanks for the Feedback, a book about exactly what it sounds like. The book focuses most on how to receive feedback well (or, at least, better); the verbiage about being a receiver, and working with a giver, refers to the two roles in a given feedback scenario.) "As receivers, we shouldn't use our views to dismiss the giver's views, but neither should we discard our own. Working to first understand their views doesn't mean we pretend we don't have life experiences or opinions. Instead, we need to understand their views even as we're aware of our own. And that's almost impossible to do unless we make a key shift -- away from that's wrong and towards tell me more: Let's figure out why we see this differently."
We have probably all at some time looked at some beautiful house and landscape in England, Italy, Tahiti, or wherever and thought: "There I could not fail to be happy!" Yet no thought could be more absurd than this one. For we all know perfectly well that not only every household, but every human being, contains the seeds of an ample crop of misery. In many cases, highly privileged surroundings merely enable human misery to assume uncommon forms.
I think perhaps there is an "essence of self." It doesn't determine the succession of self-conditions that replace or choose each other.
It doesn't even determine the choices, but shows up in how we react to those choices. What else does Solomon say to show that there's no essence of the self?
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between determining our choices and determining our reactions to our own choices. Can you elaborate? Solomon doesn't justify the point that much, he more uses the claim in service of a wider argument that we often trap ourselves in our own self-conceptions without even realizing.
I agree with that argument. Yes, we can trap ourselves in a self-conception. So he's arguing that the essence of self" is a self-conception that can be delusional. I can see that. It would be hard to realize or see that we have created a self-conception that is looking at ourself through its self-created lens. I'm suggesting that we make all kinds of choices, good ones and bad ones. Choosing Coke or Pepsi, to sleep on a couch or on the floor, to support candidate A or B -- those choices show our preferences and our thinking which can be as "fluid" as Solomon says. But our reactions to good and bad choices can potentially be less fluid and more consistent and show an "essence of self."