The human delusion of "I"

[AgAuMoney]

Alan Watts makes a brilliant argument for why the Word "I" is merely a hallucination. I really think that the philosophy of humans as independent entities is a very dangerous notion

Well I don't.  And I am prepared to fight to the death to preserve my independence without the hypocrisy of pretending to be "one" with a bunch of younger men who sacrifice their lives while I rest easy in my secure community complaining about the decisions made by someone else who is obviously too self-indulgent.

I am firmly convinced that the strength of humanity is not its ability to subsume the individual into some collectivist utopia, but rather to recognize the strengths that come from the unique combination of qualities that each of us have and to work together as individuals to jointly capitalize on those individual strengths.

(BTW, awareness of self as unique from others is a critical requirement and indicator of intelligence.)

[AgAuMoney]

Spitirual beliefs have abrolutely NOTHING to do with collectivism.

"A man who claims to know what is good for others, is dangerous."
Maharaj in I am That.

Whose and what spiritual beliefs?

As soon as the individuality of self is not part of those beliefs, it is collectivism.

And as your Maharaj points out, forcing those beliefs onto others "because it is good for them" or "it is dangerous if they don't" is truly dangerous to all.

[AgAuMoney]

people I lived among had a greatly diminished concept of "I" in both their spirituality and their day-to-day lifestyle.

What are you basing this on?

Not to speak for PS, but it sounds pretty straightforward to me.  Abolishing individuality means that everybody is subordinate to the collective, and the collective can simply help itself to anything of anybody's.

I'm not saying that anybody who believes that "I" is an illusion is wrong, but, well, yes I am.

That's good.  Excellent, really.

[AgAuMoney]

  Abolishing individuality means that everybody is subordinate to the collective

The delusion of "I" i.e. the topic of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Oh, it most certainly does!

Remember, the next thought was "the delusion of 'I' is dangerous".  And forever and always calling something dangerous has been an excuse to condemn those so targeted.

So if you want to say "I don't believe in 'I'" then go right ahead.  I will think you are irrational and let you go your merry way.  But as soon as you start wanting ME to not believe in I, you are toeing a line that shall not be crossed.  If you start calling different beliefs "dangerous", you have crossed the line and you have to be prepared to defend it, to the death if need be.  Denial is not a defense.

[AgAuMoney]

Apply this idea to the economy.... Both the head and the body must be nourished and respected in order for the organism to thrive.

And the best way we have found to do that, is for individuals to seek out their own self-interest.  It's a bit nicer if they are enlightened about it and willing to forsake some of the immediate for the future, but the system will get along without that.

People are individuals, not an organism.  People who have tried to model humanity as an organism have caused far more death and destruction than those who recognized and celebrated individual freedom.

There will be no compromise.

[doodle]

Reality is merely and illusion, albeit a very persistent one.  A. Einstein.

Just because your perceptive faculties tell you that you are an independent entity, doesn't make it so. I perceive only three dimensions, yet modern science due in large part to the work of the man quoted above now knows that that is not the case.

I disagree with you agau.

Organism: a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.

Based on a larger perspective, people and their environment form a single organism like a mother carrying her child. Seperate a man from his womb like planet and he immediately dies. From the perspective of our galaxy, we are one.

I have been reading up on eastern philosophy for a couple of months now and while that doesnt qualify me as any expert nowhere do I find anything to justify these collectivist fears.

[doodle]

AGAu,

Interdependence and symbiosis is the biological reality of our planet. I'm sorry that your particular man made philosophy on what life "should be" doesn't happen to line up with reality as it is. Nature is a bitch.

[Benko]

Doodle started a thread on a very particular topic and he and I had a conversation on that topic.  I have no idea if anyone else in the thread really understands what we were discussing, but that is fine.  I have zero interest in converting anyone to my "beliefs", and only had the conversation because I like to be helpful and people such as Doodle really interested in this area are not common.

[MediumTex]

Happily, we can each decorate our mental and spiritual interiors more or less as we choose, which is a good thing since doodle and AgAuMoney clearly have a different sense of style in this area.

doodle discovers an elegant simplicity in his interior, while AgAuMoney's is based on Burt's basement from Tremors.

It's all good.  It's all beautiful.

It only gets ugly when interiors start being imposed from the outside.

[MediumTex]

Doodle started a thread on a very particular topic and he and I had a conversation on that topic.  I have no idea if anyone else in the thread really understands what we were discussing, but that is fine.  I have zero interest in converting anyone to my "beliefs", and only had the conversation because I like to be helpful and people such as Doodle really interested in this area are not common.

It does seem like doodle is talking about two distinct things.

First, he has identified a way of perceiving reality that works well for him in this time and space. 

Second, he seems a bit impatient with those who have a different way of perceiving reality, even if they subjectively enjoy perceiving reality in their own way.

Any time someone tells me "Oh man, you just don't get it", I want to tell them "It's cool, I'll just get the next one."

There is an art to having an insight and just enjoying it.  People find peace, meaning and truth in different things, even though many ways are thought of as the "only" way.

[doodle]

Benko,

I agree. Somehow this topic is being dragged down a path that I didn't intentionally set out on. I too don't feel the need to necessarily "convert" anyone to my belief system per se. In fact I'm not really sure what my belief system is other than to attempt to seek to come to terms with who I am and why I am here. I haven't read my initial post again, but perhaps it came across as slightly confrontational. If that is the case,  I would ask others to look at it as a form of playful confrontation that has no further end than to probe what I see as a fundamental difference between eastern and western views of the world and mans place in it.

I previously posted on how I thought Taoism seemed like quite a libertarian religion. Heck even the Murry Rothbard called Lao Tzu the first libertarian. http://mises.org/daily/1967 I found this ironic however because although there are elements in eastern philosophy that focus on the individual and his personal enlightenment and happiness and praising leaders who let things flow instead of trying to control and direct events, there is also a strong idea of interdependence and symbiosis which flow through these philosophical traditions that balance out the overemphasis that the individual receives in certain western philosophies. The eastern yin and yang seems to find a way to view the parts and the whole in harmony rather than conflict.

[doodle]

There is an art to having an insight and just enjoying it.

Yes, unfortunately my ego still gets in the way. My friend was telling me recently about a trip he took to Tibet where he got to witness monks debating at the temples. The debates were quite animated and boisterous but because the monks had a subdued sense of ego there was no particular joy to be had in emerging victorious over the other. The arguments were more a manner of testing ideas. A sort of rhetorical trial by fire from which both participants emerged victorious by having hopefully edged closer to the truth through their mutual efforts.

[doodle]

You know, as I read the Murray Rothbard article lavishing praise on Lao Tzu's laissez faire style, I realize that Rothbard overlooks the importantance of the underlying philosophy of relationship and interdependence that undergirds Lao Tzu's book. Rothbard happily skims off the parts related to abolishing oppressive institutions of government, but unfortunately stops digging there. He cherry picks those parts of Lao Tzu that support his libertarian fantasyland, but he ignores the language of interdependence and symbiosis that Lao Tzu talks about. The Tao Te Ching extols and elevates the individual while at the same time promoting an acute awareness of the relationship between the individual and the universal. We in the west seem to have trouble jumping over this hurdle.

[MediumTex]

My friend was telling me recently about a trip he took to Tibet where he got to witness monks debating at the temples. The debates were quite animated and boisterous but because the monks had a subdued sense of ego there was no particular joy to be had in emerging victorious over the other. The arguments were more a manner of testing ideas. A sort of rhetorical trial by fire from which both participants emerged victorious by having hopefully edged closer to the truth through their mutual efforts.

That sounds sort of like what we do here when everything is working right.

[MediumTex]

The Tao Te Ching extols and elevates the individual while at the same time promoting an acute awareness of the relationship between the individual and the universal. We in the west seem to have trouble jumping over this hurdle.

A monk and a traveler went into the temple.  The monk sat down and thought to himself "I will now enter into communion with the universal, losing myself in the oneness of the universe."  The traveler sat down beside him and thought to himself 'Dang it feels good to sit down.  I've been standing or walking all day long."

They both sat there in great contentment.

[RuralEngineer]

Doodle,

Are you certain that humans even need to understand or engage in any sort of spiritual enlightenment, such as you propose?  I posit that all humans need to do is find the most efficient way to survive and enjoy life.  In almost all cases this is going to entail working with their environment and community that produces gain for everyone.  The times it doesn't is why we have laws to punish criminality.  Every culture has criminals, even the "enlightened" ones.

I think the only addition to our thought process we are desperately missing is, "how can I make sure my children and grandchildren can benefit from this resource as much or more than myself."  Other organisms don't have to worry about that, because most are incapable of destroying their own habitat.  The ones that are capable (parasites, diseases and such) usually have evolved to stay in balance so that they don't completely wipe out their homes. 

The best thing about making sure our lifestyles are sustainable is it speaks directly to the genetic imperative to ensure our genes are perpetuated successfully.

I guess my point is I see value in some of the conclusions drawn by the various spiritual belief systems, I'm just not sure if there isn't a more logical reason for them that exists in the real world without having to delve into the metaphysical.  People didn't stop smoking because of religion or spirituality told them they were poisoning their temple or disrupting their chi...they stopped smoking (to an extent) when we told them it would kill them.  Taxing cigarettes to death helped too, but doesn't support my point so please ignore that aspect.

[WildAboutHarry]

Based on a larger perspective, people and their environment form a single organism like a mother carrying her child.

That is a distinctly human perspective (some humans, obviously not all), because we do have the intellect and the free time to ponder such things.  It is an illusion.

Human individuals thrive, or do not thrive, in the environment they find themselves in, and that includes the societal structure/culture that they are born in.  The thrivers leave progeny and the non-thrivers do not.  Or at least not as many.  Or they move to a place/culture where they do thrive.

Obviously organisms modify their environment and vice versa.  But that doesn't make them a "single organism".

How about the old biological trick question, "Which rat is better adapted, a brown sewer rat or a white lab rat?"

Common student answer: "Why, the brown sewer rat!"

Best answer: They are both equally adapted to their environments.  Put the white rat in the sewer and his brown con-specifics will kill and eat him in no time.  Put the brown rat in the lab, and as soon as he bites the lab technician he will be thumped and headed for the incinerator.

i enjoy these conversations, seeing and experiencing the struggle to intellectually resolve the paradox of the individual that has no "I" and the "I" that is not individual. especially when intellectual understanding is the very barrier to the experience that the conversation is trying to help us leap over...
it all sorta reminds me of zen koans about the sound of one hand clapping..

Bart Simpson clearly demonstrated the sound of one hand clapping

[doodle]

WAH,

Based on a larger perspective, people and their environment form a single organism like a mother carrying her child.

That is a distinctly human perspective (some humans, obviously not all), because we do have the intellect and the free time to ponder such things.  It is an illusion.

I happen to think it is a matter of perspective. You have chosen to draw an arbitrary line definining the organism at the level of the individual human. That is an illusion based on a process of socially conditioned ego development that begins from birth and your vantage point looking out from inside your skull.

Looking in from 100,000,000 millions miles away or from the vantage point of a much larger "observer" could result in a different conclusion. Taken at the scale of the "universe", humans might as well be sub atomic particles. No one would argue that an atom is an "individual" but it shares the same size relation to the human as we do to the universe.

Humans have a tendency to define intelligence and thus what defines an "individual" along very narrow lines. Yet, our universe has an intelligence that we cannot even fathom. Our measly brains can handle a few variables before they begin to become overwhelmed. The intelligence of nature on the other hand routinely handles trillions of variables.

[doodle]

Rural Engineer,

Are you certain that humans even need to understand or engage in any sort of spiritual enlightenment, such as you propose?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I know that people who find a spiritual meaning that resonates with them also gain a profound sense of strength, happiness, and ease in their lives. So in a sense, a quest for spiritual enlightenment does reap very real rewards.

[WildAboutHarry]

I happen to think it is a matter of perspective. You have chosen to draw an arbitrary line definining the organism at the level of the individual human.

Perspective is a distinctly human construct.  It implies thought, intelligence, and the ability to "walk around in someone else's shoes".

It is not arbitrary to draw the line at individual organisms, because that is what interacts with the environment. 

And the view of earth from deep space does not imply anything about life.  Saturn or Jupiter look just as complex (maybe even more complex) than the physical manifestation of earth from far away.

Humans have a tendency to define intelligence and thus what defines an "individual" along very narrow lines. Yet, our universe has an intelligence that we cannot even fathom. Our measly brains can handle a few variables before they begin to become overwhelmed. The intelligence of nature on the other hand routinely handles trillions of variables.

Humans, as far as we know, are the only organisms that "define intelligence" at all.  The Universe's "intelligence" is a set of physical laws, properties of matter, etc.  If humans or any other element of the universe exhibited mystical properties then you might be on to something, but so far, nothing previously based on or considered to be "mystical knowledge" has withstood close scrutiny.

The existence and nature of god or other supernatural being or other intelligence of the universe is - by definition or design  -  beyond understanding on any level other than on the basis of mystical knowledge.

I have no quarrel with those seeking philosophical or spiritual meaning (heck, I picked up a copy of the Tao based on that other thread), but that endeavor does not alter the biological reality that we are individual organisms and that we live our lives as individuals (regardless of how we are organized).  You can ignore or surrender your individuality, but at your fundamental, biological peril.

[Pointedstick]

You have chosen to draw an arbitrary line definining the organism at the level of the individual human. That is an illusion based on a process of socially conditioned ego development that begins from birth and your vantage point looking out from inside your skull.

Looking in from 100,000,000 millions miles away or from the vantage point of a much larger "observer" could result in a different conclusion. Taken at the scale of the "universe", humans might as well be sub atomic particles. No one would argue that an atom is an "individual" but it shares the same size relation to the human as we do to the universe.

I admit I am not sure what you're trying to accomplish with statements like the above. What you wrote there is not fact, it is opinion informed by your spiritual beliefs. It would be like if someone said, "I have accepted Jesus as my lord and savior, and now I am going to heaven." Well... okay, good for you! But it's really hard to have a conversation based on personal spiritual beliefs because they're so intensely personal. If you have found a spiritual belief system that brings meaning to your life, than I'm happy for you! But it's likely that I will have come to a different conclusion, so stating your beliefs in a factual way or attacking the philosophical basis for the beliefs of others (individualism) is not likely to be productive or satisfying.

[doodle]

PS,

What you call attacking, I would view as probing. I have stated that I am not sure what my beliefs are, therefore I don't have a base from which to even mount an attack. I am presenting ideas here  because I want them to be challenged. I don't see any reason to get too passionately attached to anything that comes out of this.

WAH,

I am not disagreeing with the fact that humans are independent organisms. What I am arguing is that to view ourselves as only this is to miss out on the other part of us that is a dependent organism and part of a greater whole. What I am getting at is that western philosophy tends to stop at the individual. My argument is that this is missing the other half of the story. You cannot have light without dark, high without low, hard without soft. There are two sides to this coin. The eastern philosophy of yin and yang in my opinion better describes the symbiotic and interdependent reality of our existence than the stark duality that is set up in the west. We are both at the same time independent and dependent. We are separate from this universe and at the same time a part of it. When libertarians like Murray Rothbard praise Lao Tzu, they are only seeing half the picture. The part that celebrates the individual. They are ignoring the other half that celebrates the whole out of which the individual comes.

Without the perceptive intelligence of the individual the whole doesn't exist. Just as a tree that falls in the forest makes no noise because the concept of hearing something requires a listener. On the other hand without the universal whole there is no where for the individual. In this sense we are like one organism. We are mutually interdependent parts.

The west crucified Jesus because he claimed to be the son of God. Jesus was merely stating what I am arguing....I am in the father, and the father is in me. We are not separate from God, we are a part of him as he is also a part of us.

[MediumTex]

I am not disagreeing with the fact that humans are independent organisms. What I am arguing is that to view ourselves as only this is to miss out on the other part of us that is a dependent organism and part of a greater whole. What I am getting at is that western philosophy tends to stop at the individual. My argument is that this is missing the other half of the story. You cannot have light without dark, high without low, hard without soft. There are two sides to this coin. The eastern philosophy of yin and yang in my opinion better describes the symbiotic and interdependent reality of our existence than the stark duality that is set up in the west. We are both at the same time independent and dependent. We are separate from this universe and at the same time a part of it. When libertarians like Murray Rothbard praise Lao Tzu, they are only seeing half the picture. The part that celebrates the individual. They are ignoring the other half that celebrates the whole out of which the individual comes.

doodle, let me restate what you are saying above in terms that make more sense to me:

I am not disagreeing with the point of view fact that humans are independent organisms. What I am arguing is that to view myself ourselves as only this causes me is to miss out on the other part of me us that is a dependent organism and may be part of a greater whole. What I am getting at is that my understanding of western philosophy tends to stop at the individual. My argument is that this is missing the other half of the story. I You cannot have light without dark, high without low, hard without soft. From my perspective, there are two sides to this coin. The eastern philosophy of yin and yang in my opinion better describes the symbiotic and interdependent reality of my our existence than the stark duality that is set up in the west. I am We are both at the same time independent and dependent. I am We are separate from this universe and at the same time a part of it. In my opinion, when libertarians like Murray Rothbard praise Lao Tzu, they are only seeing half the picture. The part that celebrates the individual. To me, they are ignoring the other half that celebrates the whole out of which the individual comes.

***

How does that look?

[doodle]

MT,

Much better! :-) I need to improve in this area. When compared to edited version it comes across as judgmental and confrontational towards others. Lesson learned

I am the arguer, not the argument.

[Pointedstick]

MT, you truly are a wizard. Your powers of communication are awe-inspiring.