For all of his flamboyant language, Dennett's idea of our need to step into our authority and allow it to form our connection with others in ways that naturally create morality is a good one. If we are thinking and behaving in ways that are good for us and those around us, and owning our authority to do so, our integrity reinforces our self- image. The fact that we see "others" not doing this, or what has been done in the past is inconsequential because it provides a view that others are separate from us. Free will (sorry Pat) and responsibility only work when we recognize our relationship to others, and how our thoughts and actions effect all. This does not mean that all in the world has to be "goodness as seen in the good and evil" model, but "goodness accepting the deconstruction and chaos sometimes necessary to move into possibility" model. An authority that understands that the echoes of opinion and discontent of those that can't see the possibility on the horizon will soon quell in the face of a new tomorrow, is one that can move ahead based on a strong self-image. Thus, and empowered self-image comes about with a simple shift in thinking.
On Jan 2, 2:04 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > The idea of self-image(s) is embedded in what we call (self-) > consciousness, a word we all use, but the meaning of which is a major > topic of discussion. My own thinking on this subject has been deeply > influenced in the past few months by my exploration of the ideas of > Daniel C. Dennett (following a recommendation here on Minds-Eye), in > particular, in this case, his book, "Consciousness Explained" (New > York, 1991). > > To simplify radically, Dennett posits a radical change in the way we > should see consciousness, rejecting models based on what he calls a > "Cartesian Theater", "an obscure 'center' of the mind/brain ... a > place where 'it all comes together' and consciousness happens" (op. > cit., p.39) in favour of a "multiple-draft" model of consciousness; > something manifold and dynamic, composed of many strands; aborning, > developing, fading away; influencing each other, combining, entwining, > contradicting or complementing each other; coalescing out of > continuous interaction between perceptions, thoughts, ideas, feelings, > memories and experiences. Something constantly in movement and > development and producing, in this ongoing, incredibly complex > process, our sense of discrete, continuous, self-apprehending self - a > ghost in the machine in a model in which there are no such things as > ghosts! In Dennett's model we construct our selves. This is a very > different context in which to think about self-images - in this > respect, consciousness is composed of myriad self-images, complexly > interacting. > > This does not imply nihilism. I'll finish this with a longer > quotation: > "...If the self isn't a real thing, what happens to moral > responsibility? One of the most important roles of a self in our > traditional conceptual scheme is as the place where the buck stops, as > Harry Truman's sign announced. If selves aren't real - REALLY real - > won't the buck just get passed on and on, round and round, forever? If > there is no Oval Office in the brain, housing a Highest Authority to > whom all decisions can be appealed, we seem to be threatened with a > Kafkaesque bureaucracy of homunculi, who always reply, when > challenged: 'Don't blame me, I just work here.' The task of > constructing a self that can TAKE responsibility is a major social and > educational project, and you are right to be concerned about threats > to its integrity. But a brain-pearl, a real, 'intrinsically > responsible' whatever-it-is, is a pathetic bauble to brandish like a > lucky charm in the face of this threat. The only hope, and not at all > a forlorn one, is to come to understand, naturalistically, the ways in > which brains grow self-representations, thereby equipping the bodies > they control with responsible selves when all goes well. Free will and > moral responsibility are well worth wanting, and ... the best defence > of them abandons the hopelessly contradiction-riddled myth of the > distinct, separate soul." (op. cit. pp 429-430) > > Francis > > On 2 Jan., 17:04, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Everyone brings a delicious piece of the pie here to the discussion. > > (can't get enough pie during the holidays!) I love the idea of the > > collective self image and know it is an important one, directly > > related to our own internal self-image. I have been asking myself > > how, in the past few days of celebration with friends and family. I > > think that individually, we express ourselves in art, science and > > economies. Conversely (or sometimes paradoxically,) we find ourselves > > influenced by what is manifest in culture, technology/industry, > > politics. As I examine my own internal workings, I think that there > > may be a disconnect of self image (individual and collective) if I > > identify (find my identity in) culture, politics etc., instead of > > knowing myself through my relationship with these "things." Allowing > > the objective world to dictate self image leaves me feeling separate > > and wanting. > > > Why worry about what others think, do, say? Why feel the need to > > conform to trends, ideologies, etc.? If I think instead about my > > relationship to them, (how do they serve my day to day life, when I am > > in service to them am I feeling my highest potential, in what ways do > > I benefit and contribute, what do they show me about myself, can I > > feel the love?) I can let go of what is limited and unchangeable. I > > think most of all, Gruff, about you, and how the world has let you > > down. Your relationship to all that is so much more important than > > anything that was said and done. You are MORE than any of that...and > > there can be a relationship that includes forgiveness, compassion and > > self determination. I truly believe that the state of mind we are in > > when we leave this world is what carries us into what is next. If we > > can find our way to self love, peace and harmony in our final > > moment ... we may just find that the rest of what the world offered us > > in this life falls away from our next experience. > > > I think that as our self-image improves and changes and our > > relationship to the collective image improves and changes, we are > > hooked into our limitless nature. Those parts of ourselves that have > > us seeing ourselves as separate from everyone, better or worse, angry > > or resentful - define the limits of our self-image. > > > On Jan 2, 10:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Never stated that it was "only" in respect to environment but that > > > environment is increasingly having a greater impact on the formation > > > of self image. The constant is the internal self image which does not > > > have to be revealed to others. The image of the exterior can be > > > manipulated and enhanced to create a facade. The internal self image > > > has two parts, one that is the truth image, unchangeable as in you are > > > who you are and the other can be what you think you are regardless of > > > it's truth value, denial or wishful thinking. The intenal self image > > > is not fixed, see my first post in thread. > > > > On Jan 2, 3:27 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > SD, self - image is not only in respect of the environment. > > > > > It is a constant. We cannot avoid having and living with one, wherever > > > > and whenever. The rest follows : whether in truth or in fantasy, > > > > manipulative or manipulated ! > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:04 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I agree wholly as the parental influence is greatly overlooked as > > > > > being a integral part of the image formation. I know my parents could > > > > > never understand the philosophy of self image and the influence, or > > > > > lack of, they had upon it. Only mom is left anyway and she doesn't > > > > > really know what day it is. But on track, it could only be the > > > > > discovery of this tidbit of information that could lead a person down > > > > > the path of self image realization and modification based upon true > > > > > self awareness. I feel a strong correlation between this thread and > > > > > the Golden Shadow thread (another Molly wonder). We cannot change the > > > > > outward projection without recognizing what lies in the shadow. This > > > > > recognition allows us to weed out that which we know is not our true > > > > > being and without it we continue to waver in the sea of > > > > > possibilities. > > > > > Personally I feel self image coincides with and is pertinent to the > > > > > life that we are living at the time. Our age, environment, > > > > > circumstances all contribute to our self image. There may have been > > > > > times where self image mattered not but new environs awaken the need > > > > > to (re)establish our self image. ie: The image of a playboy doesn't > > > > > cut it in the nursing home, nor does the image of a sultry sex > > > > > kitten. The complexity increases as we further delve into the > > > > > perspectives of self image. It seems to me that self image must > > > > > change with time and the parameters of life changes. For those who > > > > > live their lives from birth to death in the same house, the same town > > > > > with unchanging environs have little to no need to examine self image > > > > > for it fits comfortably within their life circumstance. Those whose > > > > > live change often must often change their self image. > > > > > > On Jan 1, 10:31 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Lon, Archy, I can confidently vouch for your proposition that we > > > > > > never > > > > > > fully comprehend ourselves and for everyone else's points about self > > > > > > image as well. Molly, as usual you have come up with another > > > > > > pertinent observation about the human condition and started one more > > > > > > excellent discourse. > > > > > > > As a living example of the effects self-image can have on one's own > > > > > > life as well as on the lives of those whom I interact, I am also of > > > > > > an > > > > > > age where I can be more honest about myself then heretofore > > > > > > permitted, > > > > > > and I have to say that I'm sorely disappointed with the entire > > > > > > dynamic > > > > > > of self-image -- not with it's reality but rather with how it has > > > > > > played itself out in my own particular instance. > > > > > > > Such dangerous tools should be kept out of the hands of those ill- > > > > > > equipped to play with them. The complete genesis of self image may > > > > > > be > > > > > > mostly hidden but I'd be willing to bet a large sum a vast majority > > > > > > of > > > > > > it has to do with family, particularly ones' parents and siblings. > > > > > > > Self image may in some ways rely on genetics but I believe the vast > > > > > > majority of it is instilled in us during our single digit youth > > > > > > which, > > > > > > like marriage -- for better or worse -- we carry forward into > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > pathways we travel in life, trailing its detritus behind us. > > > > > > > Parts of our self image including how we feel > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
