the conviction that we are selves

Here’s a bit more from Jay Garfield’s Losing Ourselves:

The ninth-century Indian philosopher Śāntideva argues in How to Lead an Awakened Life (Bodhicāryāvatāra) that our conviction that we are selves arises from a primal fear of death, and that we construct the idea of a self as a bulwark against that fear. Śāntideva also argues that the idea that we are selves arises primarily in emotionally charged situations, as when we perceive that we have been harmed, or when pride is aroused. It is then that we think not of our minds or bodies, but of we who possess those minds and bodies. David Hume adopts a similar view. He argues that the thought that we are selves is a product of the passions – that we posit the self as the object of pride and humility, and then reify it in thought. If anything like these analyses is right, the idea of self is grounded not in reason or perception, but in affect.

I’m not quite sure how these ideas fit in and around this work and research but I am struck by the feeling of a being a self only arising in particular circumstances: when threatened, anxious, proud, etc. That in moments other than these we are simply experience itself (and without a self that is experiencing).

References:

Garfield, Jay L. Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live without a Self. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022.


Comments

4 responses to “the conviction that we are selves”

  1. I like this idea very much, that self is grounded in affect.

    Thinking of Jung’s 4 modes of conciousness, I ask myself if self could also be grounded in intuition.

    Best Regards!

    1. Thanks Isaac. I’m not so familiar with Jungian stuff (except the basics). Most of this project is predicated on the self as illusion (hence the nonduality thing).

  2. Hi Simon,

    After reading you I kept the words illusion and nonduality in my mind. Then I thought of asking:

    Why is it important for us/you to think about a self that is illusory?

    Just a thought…

    The word illusion sounds quite loud in my ears. Maybe that is already a reason.

    Best

    1. Tricky to respond to this Isaac as a comment. It’s really the hunch that is at the heart of this project. That nonduality is an ideal framing to understand the mind while improvising. Indeed, while doing anything. But I also understand the loudness of the word ‘illusion’ — perhaps there’s something intriguing about why it is loud for you? None of this is to say that the concept of a self isn’t useful. Rather, how might nonduality help us to understand improvisation (and mindfulness) differently (or perhaps better)?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *