What can a person truly want?



Can one truly want a particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc.?

I've been reflecting on this and it seems to me that a person can truly want only two things:
1. to avoid pain
and
2. to get pleasure.

Everything else is then merely circumstantial - the particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc. are merely circumstantials that a person hopes will enable them to avoid pain and get pleasure.


What do you think about this?
Can a person truly want anything else than to avoid pain and to get pleasure?

you seem to think that people can only have materialistic needs/goals...this is not true

It would be hard to prove that some of the things I am seeking do not in some way give me pleasure, but it seems like an awkward fit to me. I hesitate to put some of these 'things' on the table only to see them reduced to pain avoidance or pleasure seeking, not that I have any problem with those two activities. But here are a couple off the top of my head. Seeking depth in relation to others: which often seems to increase my pain at least in the short term and sometimes I know this in advance and I don't experience it as seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. Curiosity seems to lead me toward experiencing things. In other words I am propelled forward but not toward pleasure or pain, sometimes to new things, sometimes to pieces of whatever puzzle, sometimes toward completeness. I can imagine nice solid arguments reducing these to pain/pleasure categorizations, but I am unconvinced. Facing harsh truths about myself - short term this is no picnic. One could argue that I have trained myself to delay gratification and that their may be long term reductions in pain and increases in pleasure, but 1) I am not good at delayed gratification as far as I can tell and 2) it does not feel like I am negotiating my way through short term unpleasance. I powerfully drawn to face these things. (and powerfully drawn to avoid facing them). And then some vague counter-terms I would put out: meaning, rightness - not moral rightness - and self-identity. That I am somehow seeking these regardless of pain and pleasure. Again, I can think of arguments reducing.....

I don't want to get into an argument where I am trying to show these things are not really pain or pleasure related while other people reduce them. That seems both unpleasant (ha, ha) and also pointless (see).

sowhatifit'sdark,


Seeking depth in relation to others
Curiosity
Facing harsh truths about myself
meaning, rightness - not moral rightness - and self-identity

Would you say that in the long run, these are the things that give you pleasure; ie. you do them because you think you will get something pleasurable (beneficial; to your advantage; gratifying) out of them, even though in the short run they might be painful?

Do you think that you'd be worse off not pursuing the above quoted things?

you seem to think that people can only have materialistic needs/goals...this is not true

Please read my post again.

You've never wanted to give someone els pleasure or pain?

You've never wanted to give someone els pleasure or pain?

But this would still be for the sake of my own pleasure.

But this would still be for the sake of my own pleasure.
Even when it causes extra effort and the only reward you get you would have gotten anyway?

Would you say that in the long run, these are the things that give you pleasure; ie. you do them because you think you will get something pleasurable (beneficial; to your advantage; gratifying) out of them, even though in the short run they might be painful?
First I would question the idea that I value these states or urges because of the results. I think I appreciate them because they are what I am. I am not sure if they give me pleasure embodying them but rather they seem an inherent quality of me.

Second, it seems like there is a net gain. I am not sure 'pleasure' is the right word, but something that seems broader to me like 'feels better'. Pleasure I associate with wanting to, for example, make the sound 'mmmmm'. I realize that is vague in its concreteness, but you perhaps get the idea. Some of the feels better or more right does not have the qualities I associate with pleasure. Some does.

Do you think that you'd be worse off not pursuing the above quoted things?
Yes.
Not that I can claim this as a motive or the main motive. Might be an after the fact noted quality. Might be a partial motive. Might be somethign else that is a motive, but since doing these things is 'not running counter to my nature' perhaps that tend to include being better off when one does that.

Even when it causes extra effort and the only reward you get you would have gotten anyway?

Yes.
Initially, I've gotten into it for the sake of my own pleasure.
I continued and finished because I predicted that the pleasure of doing things my way would outweigh the extra effort. So, I still did it for the sake of my own pleasure.

During the activity, there might have been a change in what precisely it was that brought me pleasure (whether it was the ejnoyment of seeing somoene suffer, or the enjoyment of doing things my way), but nonetheless, I acted for the sake of my pleasure all along.

I think I appreciate them because they are what I am. I am not sure if they give me pleasure embodying them but rather they seem an inherent quality of me.

And for you, this is where it seems to stop, with "who you really are"; and you don't view this "being who you really are" or "maintaining something as an inherent quality of oneself" as something you would (yet again) do for the sake of (some kind of) pleasure --?


Second, it seems like there is a net gain. I am not sure 'pleasure' is the right word, but something that seems broader to me like 'feels better'. Pleasure I associate with wanting to, for example, make the sound 'mmmmm'. I realize that is vague in its concreteness, but you perhaps get the idea. Some of the feels better or more right does not have the qualities I associate with pleasure. Some does.

Obviously, the feeling of pleasure can come in different kinds, with different connotations, in different conceptualizations.
Such as "pleasure", "gratification", "enjoyment", "feeling good", "happiness", "advantage", "benefit" ...

Pain, on the other hand - "discomfort", "stress", "ache", "tension", "sickness", "disadvantage", "feeling bad" ...

In the OP, I meant "pleasure" and "pain" in the broadest sense, implying all such different connotations, different conceptualizations.

I'm never liked doing the dishes and I'm pretty certain that if I don't do them someone else will. Still from time to time I do the dishes without getting forced or praised for it.
And lives full of these little thingsI think

And for you, this is where it seems to stop, with "who you really are"; and you don't view this "being who you really are" or "maintaining something as an inherent quality of oneself" as something you would (yet again) do for the sake of (some kind of) pleasure --?
No. I don't experience that way. And many times I have been surprised to find out who I really am, that it was not what I thought. So it is not about some image in my mind of who I am, it is a felt experience, which I do not need to control to maintain, but rather learn not to hate or get in the way of. I cannot 'show' this to you. You can continue to think of it as an action on my part. I can only assert that you would be wrong in this and I think we'd have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.



Obviously, the feeling of pleasure can come in different kinds, with different connotations, in different conceptualizations.
Such as "pleasure", "gratification", "enjoyment", "feeling good", "happiness", "advantage", "benefit" ...
Pleasure to me is not a broad enough term. It does not cover those experiences that can even be painful but have a feeling of rightness - I am nto fond of that word completely either but it highlight somethign missing in 'pleasure'.



In the OP, I meant "pleasure" and "pain" in the broadest sense, implying all such different connotations, different conceptualizations.

Sure. But then they are specific words with histories of use and tendencies of use. If they are agreed with in the broadest sense, the conclusions drawn from that may be skewed by their history and tendencies. I may in the end agree with you, but given their meanings for me, even aware of your wanting them taken broadly, I feel the urge to press against them for a while, rather than finding later that I can be deduced to have this or that psychology.

I enjoy having peace of mind which is very difficult to achieve and once you do it is very hard to hold onto. I have achieved it many times in my life only to have something come along and disturb me to a point where I lose it and have to start all over again. To just be able to hold onto peace of mind fora very long time, more than a year, would be something I'm always trying to do.

Never letting fear take over my mind set is another thing to achieve and this I've done pretty good at. It took me many years to finally achieve this one but once I had lifes been a much better and worry free place to be in. Many people live in constant fear of many things including death which to me I'm no longer fearful of because everything lives and dies, its just a matter of when it all happens. ;)

A person could truly want to explore (space, mind, earth etc).

What can a person truly want?



Can one truly want a particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc.?

I've been reflecting on this and it seems to me that a person can truly want only two things:
1. to avoid pain
and
2. to get pleasure.

Everything else is then merely circumstantial - the particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc. are merely circumstantials that a person hopes will enable them to avoid pain and get pleasure.


What do you think about this?
Can a person truly want anything else than to avoid pain and to get pleasure?

I think you can reduce that to 'feel good and maintain that state'.
Or maybe even better to 'maintain an acceptable state'.

Although I must say that the most basic thing anybody can want is to not die.

When you look at it this way it becomes like a mind buggling problem but yeah I see what you mean.

No. I don't experience that way. And many times I have been surprised to find out who I really am, that it was not what I thought. So it is not about some image in my mind of who I am, it is a felt experience, which I do not need to control to maintain, but rather learn not to hate or get in the way of. I cannot 'show' this to you. You can continue to think of it as an action on my part. I can only assert that you would be wrong in this and I think we'd have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.

Here's some background of my inquiry: I'm seeing a counselor. We discuss courses of action that I could take to improve the quality of my life, like implementing the habit of getting to bed by 11 PM, for example. To which I will say "Yes, this seems feasible, it seems like a good thing to do."
To which the counselor replies, "But do you want it?" - and I am left speechless.

I am supposed to know about all those particular things that I either want or don't want - and I can't answer.
I can only answer whether I think following this or that course of action, pursuing this or that thing will bring me pleasure or pain - but that is all.

Some people seem to know precisely what they want "I want to be a pilot. I want a muffin. I want a new pair of sneakers. I want better relationships." and so on. And for them, these desires seem to be absolute, self-existant, a part of "who they really are".

For me, life rarely makes sense that way. For me, it is usually "What course of action should I take, or what to pursue that will bring me the most pleasure and help me avoid the most pain?" Whether it is becoming a pilot, eating a muffin, getting a new pair of sneakers, or better relationships - these things are just circumstantial, I don't experience them as having something to do with "who I really am".


I can't really relate to people like yourself. Perhaps you are of a different species than me.
- And I'm not saying this lightly. Perhaps there is a God, perhaps some people have souls, and some others have not ...



Pleasure to me is not a broad enough term.

"Pleasure" and "pain" are terms usually used in general psychology, to describe the two basic drives.
Of course there are terminological problems; but if we go too deep into them, we won't get anywhere, I'm afraid.

No offence but you must have one hell of a ego.

No offence but you must have one hell of a ego.

Who must have a hell of an ego?
Or, what must one have a hell of an ego for?

He does.

And it is unfortunate that the ego is so important.
Poor dude.

Here's some background of my inquiry: I'm seeing a counselor. We discuss courses of action that I could take to improve the quality of my life, like implementing the habit of getting to bed by 11 PM, for example. To which I will say "Yes, this seems feasible, it seems like a good thing to do."
To which the counselor replies, "But do you want it?" - and I am left speechless.

Excellent communication choices. Thank you! Not that we will now for certain connect, but I really get our differences and bringing it to the conrete was perfect. I am not exactly sure what the counselor meant by 'do you want it?' Did he or she mean do you want to go to bed at that time. Or do you want the likely results of going to bed at that time? Let me know.

I am supposed to know about all those particular things that I either want or don't want - and I can't answer.
I can only answer whether I think following this or that course of action, pursuing this or that thing will bring me pleasure or pain - but that is all.

Do you ever want something that seems to bring you pain?
Are you not aware of desire at all? or is it more that in many important areas you do not feel or know your desires - or have any?

Some people seem to know precisely what they want "I want to be a pilot. I want a muffin. I want a new pair of sneakers. I want better relationships." and so on. And for them, these desires seem to be absolute, self-existant, a part of "who they really are". I think it is complicated. I would not want to say that in all situations when I seem to want something this is an expression of who I really am. Sometimes I realize later I was drawn to something because it helped me hide from how I felt or realizing who I was. And I see the same phenomenon in others - some of whom can communicate about this. Some people seem to be very confused about who they are and this plays out in their desires. Their desires are the products of marketing campaigns by various religious, commercial and peer organizations.

My point is that I do not take all desires at face value. At the same time it does sound like we are different.

For me, life rarely makes sense that way. For me, it is usually "What course of action should I take, or what to pursue that will bring me the most pleasure and help me avoid the most pain?" Whether it is becoming a pilot, eating a muffin, getting a new pair of sneakers, or better relationships - these things are just circumstantial, I don't experience them as having something to do with "who I really am".

It sounds like you rationally analyze the likely outcomes of choices. For me I have found this does not work, because the variables are too complicated for my conscious mind to evaluate. I have to trust desire more. What seems less likely to produce pleasure or rightness or what I want often turns out to do just that. Also I find that if I don't do what I desire because of rational motives I can end up having a split. Eating too much ice cream on one occasion can lead to feeling unpleasant in my belly that evening, but the opening my rational centers to the other parts of me can have positive effects I could not have anticipated. Full participation of myself. Almost like a developing courtship between people. (I realize this may not apply at all to you since you seem to be saying you do not experience the desire in the first place. It seemed however important to point out.)
I can't really relate to people like yourself. Perhaps you are of a different species than me.
And I'm not saying this lightly. Perhaps there is a God, perhaps some people have souls, and some others have not ...

This sounded almost sad. But maybe I am projecting. not the state, but the inability to relate to people like me. (perhaps better put and inability for us to relate to each other)
I am not quite sure my feelings of desire come from a soul, but I understand how you got to that place. An essential self is what I am claiming and you do not experience this. You seem to experience something more amorphous that takes a pragmatic approach to choosing.




"Pleasure" and "pain" are terms usually used in general psychology, to describe the two basic drives.
Of course there are terminological problems; but if we go too deep into them, we won't get anywhere, I'm afraid.

Perhaps. I was leery of agreeing (even with provisos) only to find a conclusion drawn deductively from this. Therefore you are........
At that point I would feel like going back and saying, well, actually I have a problem with the terms. So I figured I would start with revervations and avoid later backtracking. I am less concerned now since you went into detail about yourself.

I figure a few things are possible.
1 We are different, period.
2 We are different but more in quantity than quality. Perhaps you are more rational than me - more conscious with more overview of things - and I am more a feeling creature - more instinctive. These are strengths and weaknesses.
3 You are not aware of your desire or are cut off from it, but this is not an essential state. It is there, somewhere, but judged or damaged or made out to be evil.
4 I am hallucinating an essential self - because it reduces pain or gives me pleasure.

What can a person truly want?



Can one truly want a particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc.?

I've been reflecting on this and it seems to me that a person can truly want only two things:
1. to avoid pain
and
2. to get pleasure.

Everything else is then merely circumstantial - the particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc. are merely circumstantials that a person hopes will enable them to avoid pain and get pleasure.


What do you think about this?
Can a person truly want anything else than to avoid pain and to get pleasure?

I agree with what you are saying here. Which is why I also believe everything a person does is "selfish" and done for their own benefit and no one else’s...there is no such thing as true "selflessness" just selfish acts that sometimes benefit others.

Even when John Doe dies in combat protecting his loved ones and goes through hell to assure their safety......he is acting on HIS want and HIS "pleasure" of their survival....

When Oprah donates umpteen trillion dollars to X foundation she is being selfish......it just happens that her selfishness benifits others.......which is arguably the best form of selfish......

I've always seen people as selfish and question their every intention....what is in it for them? Sometimes they just want to feel self righteous and preach to everyone "you should be more like me" sometimes its materialistic......too many reasons to count.

What do you think about this?

I think it sounds perfect. Happiness is the purpose behind everything.

What can a person truly want?



Can one truly want a particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc.?

I've been reflecting on this and it seems to me that a person can truly want only two things:
1. to avoid pain
and
2. to get pleasure.

Everything else is then merely circumstantial - the particular job, a raise, a pizza, sex, improved physical condition, a new car, that one would be loved etc. etc. are merely circumstantials that a person hopes will enable them to avoid pain and get pleasure.


What do you think about this?
Can a person truly want anything else than to avoid pain and to get pleasure?

you forgot,

avoid pain

to get pleasure

and the most important, new converse

Excellent communication choices. Thank you!

You're welcome!


I am not exactly sure what the counselor meant by 'do you want it?' Did he or she mean do you want to go to bed at that time. Or do you want the likely results of going to bed at that time? Let me know.

Basically, it's about the difference between thinking
on the one hand, "I should do that; I shouldn't do that" or "This is right; that is wrong" or "This is feasible; that isn't",
and on the other hand, desiring or wanting something.

E.g. Whether I think it would be good to go to bed by 11 PM,
or whether I want to go to bed by 11PM.


Do you ever want something that seems to bring you pain?

Yes - as long as I predict it will bring me more pleasure than pain (both being subjective, of course).
But again, I could hardly say I want it. When I think "I want this", this desire is usually present for literally a few seconds at most, and then it fades. After that, I can't actually say anymore whether I want something or not.
I imagine truly wanting something would mean a desire that is present firmly, continuously and for a long time.


Some people seem to be very confused about who they are

Since you say that: Do you think you can and do know who other people are? That such can be recognized?


Their desires are the products of marketing campaigns by various religious, commercial and peer organizations.

How do you recognize which desires are "the products of marketing campaigns by various religious, commercial and peer organizations",
and which are truly connected to the person's true self?


Are you not aware of desire at all? or is it more that in many important areas you do not feel or know your desires - or have any?

... you seem to be saying you do not experience the desire in the first place.

I do experience desire, very much so. I have so many desires! But they don't strike me as reliable guidelines for action. Looking at my life, most of the times when I acted on my desires (while disregarding the right/wrong, good/bad, feasible/not feasible analysis), it eventually turned out bad, or at least I wasn't happy. And I don't think I have any extraordinary desires, either. I would say my desires are fairly common.
(It was after much much disappointment with acting on desire that I became more of a rationalist.)


I can't really relate to people like yourself. Perhaps you are of a different species than me.
And I'm not saying this lightly. Perhaps there is a God, perhaps some people have souls, and some others have not ...

This sounded almost sad. But maybe I am projecting. not the state, but the inability to relate to people like me.

Well, I am sad. I often feel alienated. I meet people, they tell me about "being true to oneself", "finding one's true self", "being who you really are", "knowing thyself" and so on, and I, for the life of me, have no idea what that self could be or how to recognize it in oneself and others.


An essential self is what I am claiming and you do not experience this. You seem to experience something more amorphous that takes a pragmatic approach to choosing.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for the succint phrasing.

you forgot,

avoid pain

to get pleasure

and the most important, new converse

Please explain - What do you mean by "new converse"?

Basically, it's about the difference between thinking
on the one hand, "I should do that; I shouldn't do that" or "This is right; that is wrong" or "This is feasible; that isn't",
and on the other hand, desiring or wanting something.

E.g. Whether I think it would be good to go to bed by 11 PM,
or whether I want to go to bed by 11PM.
If it seemed like somethign that was feasible and good, going to bed at 11pm, did not find you had some resistance to doing it. In other words when you determine, by whatever process, that it is a good idea to do something, do you sometimes experience wanting to not do it?




Yes - as long as I predict it will bring me more pleasure than pain (both being subjective, of course).
But again, I could hardly say I want it. When I think "I want this", this desire is usually present for literally a few seconds at most, and then it fades. After that, I can't actually say anymore whether I want something or not.
I imagine truly wanting something would mean a desire that is present firmly, continuously and for a long time.

I have experienced longings for a long time - perhaps that's part of where the word comes from. But even with these it comes and goes andor forms a kind of backdrop I am not always aware of. This is one of those areas where determining similarity and difference are tricky. Perhaps my actual experience of desire peaks in just a few seconds, but somehow sets in motion a bunch of stuff because the organism takes it seriously. Perhaps it does last longer. I will try to keep an eye on this over the next few days.




Since you say that: Do you think you can and do know who other people are? That such can be recognized?
Sometimes, yes. I can't say I put a lot of stock in it. I used to, a long time ago. I wanted categories, people to avoid and seek. I may have been right on the money, I many not. In a general way I can see teenage years as a time when this kind of pattern can really take hold. Teenagers are heavily marketed at, from many different directions, and a lot of very specific desires can be created. I think some never look back and wonder what they really wanted - I realize this latter concept may be controversial to you, but so it seems to me.




How do you recognize which desires are "the products of marketing campaigns by various religious, commercial and peer organizations",
and which are truly connected to the person's true self?
Good tough question. I am best set up to know this in myself. I think I can detect sometimes in others, but I am not so interested in that. Again that idea of rightness and continuousness. If I buy a certain product I can feel peachy for an hour about it. If I walk in nature I feel right in myself and will tomorrow. I will even feel more right somehow when I am sad if I am in nature. There are specific kinds of natural settings where I feel more at home, that seem to feed something central in me. I do not experience an addictive rebound or hangover. I do not feel speedy or compulsive in seeking these places out. They feel like friends. We are on the very subjective end of things.

If I am nervous I can feel a 'desire' for food. And then, after eating, a gauze is present in my 'soul'. I am less of who I am, though there is less pain.

This second example to me says that I did not really desire food, I desired less pain and it seemed the only route to it at the time. I did not know how to resolve it more directly. I have also noticed how something my real desire, perhaps to cry out in my fear, gets skipped over. If I open to this real desire the next time, I lose that desire for food.





I do experience desire, very much so. I have so many desires! But they don't strike me as reliable guidelines for action. Looking at my life, most of the times when I acted on my desires (while disregarding the right/wrong, good/bad, feasible/not feasible analysis), it eventually turned out bad, or at least I wasn't happy. And I don't think I have any extraordinary desires, either. I would say my desires are fairly common.
(It was after much much disappointment with acting on desire that I became more of a rationalist.)

My sense is not to try to touch that.




Well, I am sad. I often feel alienated. I meet people, they tell me about "being true to oneself", "finding one's true self", "being who you really are", "knowing thyself" and so on, and I, for the life of me, have no idea what that self could be or how to recognize it in oneself and others.

But in and of itself, do you feel alienated from yourself. Do you feel the urge to find your real self or even that that might be meaningful?

I guess it seems to me we go through evolutionary processes, whether or not we are different essentially or not (I mean humans, not just you and me). Maybe you need a phase where you got objective control or overview. Maybe you had been manipulated so much before that you needed to withdraw in some way from desire because the desires had been controlled by others for so long - rather than say an addict who has really been harming himself or others where the main motive might be survival, for example. Whatever, I am just guessing. Maybe when you are established in the driver's seat you will begin to recognize desires that seem like you and others that seem like avoidance. Maybe I will shift into stressing some kind of pragmatic approach once I have learned to love desire more and making that shift will no longer be a choice not to feel the desires. Or something.

I think there is often this idea that we must progress by what seems like an ever increasing repetition or stress of this quality or process, when maybe it is more complicated.

And the above was on the asssumption that we are 'really' the same in terms of desire. If that is not the case, the possibility and range of guesses gets even broader. And so do the solutions.

I could also say that it seems to me you have moved desire up to a level of abstraction. Almost as if you have decultured yourself. You are not attached to specifics. Perhaps this was a goal. To extricate yourself from culture or a culture. Perhaps this is a kind of rebirth. A baby wants food, sure, and perhaps to be held, but they are not cultured beings. Their desires are toward pleasure and pain and satisfaction. Maybe you need to be in a kind of pure form state in your desires right now - so that a desire to join a club, for example, would be too far off from basic evaluations to be truly felt. Having the desires of a baby and the mind of an intelligent adult you could decide to join a club, but only after rational analysis of likely outcomes. On the other hand you have your desires and you are nurturing them, rather than being caught up in pretending that this or that club is somehow a part of who you are.

I could keep going, but it all seems very speculative. I am sure you get the idea anyway.

Main point: we are in the middle of processes that may have phases. So the phases seem like who we are and so we seem different. And even if we are fundamentally different, the phases are adding to the confusion.

Please explain - What do you mean by "new converse"?

The shoes.. lol
No, really.. :cool:

Wisdom.

Please explain - What do you mean by "new converse"?


http://www.kulturblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/converse_all-stars.jpg

QUESTION TO EXTEND THE OP:


Can a person truly want something for some other reason than to seek pleasure (gratification, benefit, enjoyment, happiness ...) or to avoid pain (discomfort, disadvantage, stress ...)?

QUESTION TO EXTEND THE OP:


Can a person truly want something for some other reason than to seek pleasure (gratification, benefit, enjoyment, happiness ...) or to avoid pain (discomfort, disadvantage, stress ...)?

No, people are inherently egoistic even without knowing it.
If you give someone a present it's ultimately because you will feel good about it. Same with helping people or giving money to good causes etc..

Btw. you never answered my post (16)..

QUESTION TO EXTEND THE OP:


Can a person truly want something for some other reason than to seek pleasure (gratification, benefit, enjoyment, happiness ...) or to avoid pain (discomfort, disadvantage, stress ...)?

No. I am aware of altruism/

No. I am aware of altruism/

What are your arguments for altruism ?

Or.. maybe I misinterpreted your post (?)

Btw. you never answered my post (16)..

I've seen it. I even thought about it today as I went out for a walk.

Although I must say that the most basic thing anybody can want is to not die.

This opens up a heap of problems. What you say is probably true for many people, but not for all.

This opens up a heap of problems. What you say is probably true for many people, but not for all.

Can you explain to me why it opens op a heap of problems ?

What are your arguments for altruism ?

Or.. maybe I misinterpreted your post (?)

I believe that all behaviour is in some sense self-serving. Altruism is based on empathy, that is, it is ultimately related to self.

If it seemed like somethign that was feasible and good, going to bed at 11pm, did not find you had some resistance to doing it. In other words when you determine, by whatever process, that it is a good idea to do something, do you sometimes experience wanting to not do it?

Of course. The path of least resistance is the most appealing one, and so for a reason.
I don't think there are many people who leap to the prospect of hardship, except perhaps martyrs and professional workaholics.


Perhaps my actual experience of desire peaks in just a few seconds, but somehow sets in motion a bunch of stuff because the organism takes it seriously.

Yes. And this might be a difference between us: you seem to take your desires more seriously than I do.

Have you always taken your desires seriously, or is this something you have deliberately trained yourself into?


Good tough question. I am best set up to know this in myself. I think I can detect sometimes in others, but I am not so interested in that. Again that idea of rightness and continuousness. If I buy a certain product I can feel peachy for an hour about it. If I walk in nature I feel right in myself and will tomorrow. I will even feel more right somehow when I am sad if I am in nature. There are specific kinds of natural settings where I feel more at home, that seem to feed something central in me. I do not experience an addictive rebound or hangover. I do not feel speedy or compulsive in seeking these places out. They feel like friends. We are on the very subjective end of things.

Myself, I usually wouldn't distinguish between desires as "mine" or "imposed by others". My distinction would be "more satisfying" and "less satisfying" or a similar more-less comparison.


Well, I am sad. I often feel alienated. I meet people, they tell me about "being true to oneself", "finding one's true self", "being who you really are", "knowing thyself" and so on, and I, for the life of me, have no idea what that self could be or how to recognize it in oneself and others.

But in and of itself, do you feel alienated from yourself. Do you feel the urge to find your real self or even that that might be meaningful?

In this regard, the "desire to find myself" -which I do have- clearly feels imposed on me by others. If it weren't for others pushing me to "find my true self" etc., I'm not sure I would have ever even thought of it.

Whether I feel alienated from myself? Generally, no. But I feel a sense of alienation when I think or talk about the issues of self, "finding oneself" and such. So many people keep talking about this self thing, but apart from those who believe in God and souls, nobody has managed to provide a viable explanation of what the self is or how to recognize it.
Religions and philosophies have been dealing with this problem for millenia. Frankly, whenever someone claims they have a self, I am tempted to face them with those millenia of problems around the self, and demand that person to resolve them. Because apparently, that person is implying they are smarter than the millenia of religions and philosophies, and I sure would like to partake in that smartness!


I could also say that it seems to me you have moved desire up to a level of abstraction. Almost as if you have decultured yourself. You are not attached to specifics.

This is an interesting observation.
Actually, in a way, I am decultured - I am globalized, so to speak. I know a lot of cultures, but I don't seem to belong in any of them.


Main point: we are in the middle of processes that may have phases. So the phases seem like who we are and so we seem different. And even if we are fundamentally different, the phases are adding to the confusion.

If the self truly were a process, then it could not be self. There is no such thing as a changeable self. If something is changeable, it is not self. - If we don't accept these premises, then we might as well forget about the whole self issue because we're using words to mean something else than they mean.

There are a few things we "truly" want. One is security. Everyones definition of this will differ slightly, but essentially, we want assurance that everyday we will have
1: food
2: sleep
3: a safe place to reside.

If we live a life where these three needs are met and we have assurance that they will continue to be met then we will have the next thing that we truly want which is: Comfort.

What we truly want is less about a particular emotion or material needs, but about our current standing in life and if we are in an environment where we can comfortably deal with our emotions. Humans do not necessarily want to avoid displeasure/pain altogether, we know on the deepest level that those feelings are a part of us. And feeling the whole range of emotions is what makes us feel uniquely human.

Some other things that humans truly want:
Identity-Who am I, what defines me?
Companionship-
Contentment-
Freedom-

To a lesser degree
Power
Pleasure
Individuality
Control
Confidence
Etc etc...

But ultimately, Humans cannot devote time to these lesser needs/wants until there most base needs are met, which boils back down to:
1: Do I have food today, and assurance of it in the future
2: Am I well rested and know that I will get rest tonight
3: Am I confident that I can rest easy tonight knowing that I am safe from harm.

Do you not feel the best in those afternoon hours when you have eaten dinner, and you are resting and you know that you are in the safety of your own home?

Of course. The path of least resistance is the most appealing one, and so for a reason.
I don't think there are many people who leap to the prospect of hardship, except perhaps martyrs and professional workaholics. Perhaps some of your desires are in that region which resists.




Yes. And this might be a difference between us: you seem to take your desires more seriously than I do.
Certainly seems that way.

Have you always taken your desires seriously, or is this something you have deliberately trained yourself into?
I would say I have taken them seriously in some areas more than others. I would prefer to say I unlearned ignoring and judging desires - took away guilt and other residues of religions, societal fetishes, and judgements I had made about what MUST happen if I notice, express, try to satisfy my desires.




Myself, I usually wouldn't distinguish between desires as "mine" or "imposed by others". My distinction would be "more satisfying" and "less satisfying" or a similar more-less comparison.

OK.




In this regard, the "desire to find myself" -which I do have- clearly feels imposed on me by others. If it weren't for others pushing me to "find my true self" etc., I'm not sure I would have ever even thought of it.

Are you simply inspired by others who may have raised a dorment desire in you? Or do you feel you are doing it for them or because they value it?

Whether I feel alienated from myself? Generally, no. But I feel a sense of alienation when I think or talk about the issues of self, "finding oneself" and such. So many people keep talking about this self thing, but apart from those who believe in God and souls, nobody has managed to provide a viable explanation of what the self is or how to recognize it.
Religions and philosophies have been dealing with this problem for millenia. Frankly, whenever someone claims they have a self, I am tempted to face them with those millenia of problems around the self, and demand that person to resolve them. Because apparently, that person is implying they are smarter than the millenia of religions and philosophies, and I sure would like to partake in that smartness! Not being able to prove something does not mean one is wrong to believe in it. One may intuit something is true and then a few thousand years later someone comes up with language or technology to prove it to others.




This is an interesting observation.
Actually, in a way, I am decultured - I am globalized, so to speak. I know a lot of cultures, but I don't seem to belong in any of them.
Have you actually gone to other countries or immersed yourself in subcultures within your own country. I found this humbling. In some ways I thought of myself as decultured - and I still think there is some truth in this - but I also found out I was cultured. Given that my parents are not from the country of my birth - and each from a different country - I also found I was more like them than I realized. I found myself reacting as if I was a citizen of one of these countries, sometimes rather prissily. I could not believe it. I even found feelings of 'well, you people just don't do that right.' I mean I'd laugh when I caught myself. Generally it was over issues that really I did not have a moral problem, in other words where cultural relativity seemed non-controversial.

If the self truly were a process, then it could not be self. There is no such thing as a changeable self. If something is changeable, it is not self. - If we don't accept these premises, then we might as well forget about the whole self issue because we're using words to mean something else than they mean.

I am not sure that a self cannot both change and remain the same. I know that seems to run into logical problems but it fits my experience and intuition. I realize this will hardly be convincing as an argument. I did want to at least say that I do not feel I must accept the mutual exclusivity, for what it is worth to know that someone out there does not.

There are a few things we "truly" want. One is security. Everyones definition of this will differ slightly, but essentially, we want assurance that everyday we will have
1: food
2: sleep
3: a safe place to reside.

If we live a life where these three needs are met and we have assurance that they will continue to be met then we will have the next thing that we truly want which is: Comfort.

What we truly want is less about a particular emotion or material needs, but about our current standing in life and if we are in an environment where we can comfortably deal with our emotions. Humans do not necessarily want to avoid displeasure/pain altogether, we know on the deepest level that those feelings are a part of us. And feeling the whole range of emotions is what makes us feel uniquely human.

Some other things that humans truly want:
Identity-Who am I, what defines me?
Companionship-
Contentment-
Freedom-

To a lesser degree
Power
Pleasure
Individuality
Control
Confidence
Etc etc...

But ultimately, Humans cannot devote time to these lesser needs/wants until there most base needs are met, which boils back down to:
1: Do I have food today, and assurance of it in the future
2: Am I well rested and know that I will get rest tonight
3: Am I confident that I can rest easy tonight knowing that I am safe from harm.

Do you not feel the best in those afternoon hours when you have eaten dinner, and you are resting and you know that you are in the safety of your own home?

I would add a fourth point to your list; the possibility of satisfying our innate drive to procreate.

Yeah i thought of that too, but I don't think that would apply to everyone. I would classify it as a very small degree for a couple of reasons. One is that not everyone wants to have children. And two, most people who do want children don't really want to bring them into the world until they have their shit somewhat together. Although it often happens that people bring children into the world before they are ready. Thanks to human lust... But if it was possible for humans to exercise more control, then I dont think they would have kids until they had their comfort/security needs met. Ultimately, I do agree though, having children is on the list of what people "truly" want.

How do I delete posts?

I am

...

Well

Yeah i thought of that too, but I don't think that would apply to everyone. I would classify it as a very small degree for a couple of reasons. One is that not everyone wants to have children. And two, most people who do want children don't really want to bring them into the world until they have their shit somewhat together. Although it often happens that people bring children into the world before they are ready. Thanks to human lust... But if it was possible for humans to exercise more control, then I dont think they would have kids until they had their comfort/security needs met. Ultimately, I do agree though, having children is on the list of what people "truly" want.

Nature drives us to have sex so that we can procreate. We can, of course, frustrate the process by practising birth control. It is as natural as the urge to eat.

Of course. The path of least resistance is the most appealing one, and so for a reason.
I don't think there are many people who leap to the prospect of hardship, except perhaps martyrs and professional workaholics.

Perhaps some of your desires are in that region which resists.

What do you mean?


I would prefer to say I unlearned ignoring and judging desires - took away guilt and other residues of religions, societal fetishes, and judgements I had made about what MUST happen if I notice, express, try to satisfy my desires.

How did you "unlearn ignoring and judging desires"? Was it planned, deliberate? What actions did you undertake, and for what intentions did you undertake them, that the result was "unlearning ignoring and judging desires" and "taking away guilt and other residues of religions, societal fetishes, and judgements"?


In this regard, the "desire to find myself" -which I do have- clearly feels imposed on me by others. If it weren't for others pushing me to "find my true self" etc., I'm not sure I would have ever even thought of it.

Are you simply inspired by others who may have raised a dorment desire in you? Or do you feel you are doing it for them or because they value it?

Neither. This desire to "find myself" is to me the same as obeying traffic laws, for example. It is something that simply comes with the territory, and there is no way to really explain it or justify it. One "just has to do it, or face the consequences".
The consequences of not "finding my true self" are being excluded from a particular group of people (a large group of people, actually).


Frankly, whenever someone claims they have a self, I am tempted to face them with those millenia of problems around the self, and demand that person to resolve them. Because apparently, that person is implying they are smarter than the millenia of religions and philosophies, and I sure would like to partake in that smartness!

Not being able to prove something does not mean one is wrong to believe in it. One may intuit something is true and then a few thousand years later someone comes up with language or technology to prove it to others.

If "knowing thyself" is such a good thing as those who claim to "know themselves" say it is, then I sure would like to partake in this.
It is not about me wanting them to prove that they "truly know themselves".
If they say there are great benefits from "knowing thyself" then I would like those benefits for myself as well. Who would not want benefits for themselves!

I would like those people to teach me how to find my "true self". For if it is possible to "find one's true self", and others have done it before, then there must be a method for it, a method that can be taught to others who have not yet "found themselves".

Or is this such an outrageous thing to ask??

A good bowel movement daily! :rolleyes:

A good bowel movement daily! :rolleyes:

You know Shaw's recipe for a happy life was open bowels and comfortable boots

A man after my own bowels!;)

What do you mean? Not wanting may come from the same place as wanting. If we have been pushed hard, told what we should want and what we should not want, the center of desire will get stuck as mere resistance to shoulds. (My sense is my metaphors here will not fit your view of things, but I am not sure how to avoid that.)




How did you "unlearn ignoring and judging desires"? Was it planned, deliberate? What actions did you undertake, and for what intentions did you undertake them, that the result was "unlearning ignoring and judging desires" and "taking away guilt and other residues of religions, societal fetishes, and judgements"?
I recognized that I was, in a way, at war with myself. I got tired of the war. Often the first steps were in feeling these desires and really allowing them expression in my body, without necessarily going out and satisfying them. I also did formal releases of the guilt around some of them. "I believe it is fine to..." Then exploration of the actual satisfaction of the desires. Most of which were 'satisfied' before I made the decision to accept them, but in the midst of a lot of judgements that they were bad or dangerous to me in some way. How I experienced them once I no longer judged them to be leading me to hell, samsara, chaos, addiction and so on was very different from how I experienced them before these changes.



I would like those people to teach me how to find my "true self". For if it is possible to "find one's true self", and others have done it before, then there must be a method for it, a method that can be taught to others who have not yet "found themselves".
I think the only way to find your true self is to accept as much of whatever you encounter in yourself. Reactions, emotions, desires, urges. I think one has to move with care, because these portions of one's true self have been judged, compressed and contorted for so long, just to simply act out immediately - which would probably being denying quite a bit of fear anyway - could lead to problems. So small steps.

Some traditions consider acceptance observation. This has not felt like acceptance to me. Like a parent simply observing a child. I child would like participation, engagement, the permission ability to express.

But if that sounds wrong to you, then it probably is wrong for you.


Or is this such an outrageous thing to ask??
No.

A man after my own bowels!;)

I had a gut feeling you would like that

Nature drives us to have sex so that we can procreate. We can, of course, frustrate the process by practising birth control. It is as natural as the urge to eat.

Hmm... No, eating is vital to survival, without food we will die within a few days. Sex is great, but it is not vital to our individual survival. It is vital to the survival of the species, but I do not need sex to stay alive. I also do not need to have children to stay alive. I know many couples and many people who do not want kids, and I know many couples and people who have already lived past the age of being able to conceive, and they are perfectly happy. They never wanted them. Also look at Buddhist, jain, hindu, and catholic monks who make an oath of celibacy. Those people live just as long as the next person...
I do think its a natural urge, but its not vital to our individual survival.

Not wanting may come from the same place as wanting. If we have been pushed hard, told what we should want and what we should not want, the center of desire will get stuck as mere resistance to shoulds. (My sense is my metaphors here will not fit your view of things, but I am not sure how to avoid that.)

Leaving aside the problem of desiring to take the path of least resistence - I think the shoulds are problematic only if they are insisted in but no goal or justification for them is given; or if the goal or justification given for them is immoral or undesired from one's own perspective.

E.g. "You should go to medical school." - "Why?" - "You just should."
or "You should go to medical school so that you can be a doctor and earn a lot of money." - "But I don't want to be a doctor."


I think the only way to find your true self is to accept as much of whatever you encounter in yourself.

This of course requires that one already believes there is such a thing as "true self".

Without such a belief preexisting, "accepting as much of whatever you encounter in yourself" turns into creating your "true self". - Which seems plausible on some practical, colloquial level. But I think someone who has tried to actually do it, to create a "true self" out of a heap of not-self knows it's impossible. Because there is always the doubt, the knowledge that from nothing can only come nothing.

I think that believing that one has a "true self" requires either of these things:
1. that one has been created by God,
2. that one is matter.

The true -self nonsense is nonsense, in my view. It's the very stuff of many of the self-help books that roll off the press.

When we act we leave an audit trail, so to speak. Looking at our past actions shows us what we were at a given time. We may tell ourselves that we could have acted differently, but there is no avoiding the fact that we did not. I am, of course, referring to voluntary actions.

That's about it. It might be worth considering how one would know that one's true self had been discovered. What would it feel like ? How certain would we be ? Do we honestly believe that we would stop searching at that point ? I think not.

Seeking one's "true" self is an endless process, a bit like a dog chasing his tail.

Leaving aside the problem of desiring to take the path of least resistence - I think the shoulds are problematic only if they are insisted in but no goal or justification for them is given; or if the goal or justification given for them is immoral or undesired from one's own perspective.

E.g. "You should go to medical school." - "Why?" - "You just should."
or "You should go to medical school so that you can be a doctor and earn a lot of money." - "But I don't want to be a doctor."




This of course requires that one already believes there is such a thing as "true self".

Without such a belief preexisting, "accepting as much of whatever you encounter in yourself" turns into creating your "true self". - Which seems plausible on some practical, colloquial level. But I think someone who has tried to actually do it, to create a "true self" out of a heap of not-self knows it's impossible. Because there is always the doubt, the knowledge that from nothing can only come nothing.

I think that believing that one has a "true self" requires either of these things:
1. that one has been created by God,
2. that one is matter.

I got the impression you were actually looking for a way to get to your true self. Not that you had assumed, yet, that there was one, but were interested, perhaps even felt some desire in that direction.

I misunderstood. It was more a rhetorical request, without any belief or real interest on your part. It was more like "if there is a real self that can be reached, then you should be able to teach me how to reach it." A kind of litmus test. I read back over what you wrote and I can see how I read something into your request that was not there.

I would not have answered the way I did if I had not made this mistaken interpretation.

As far as the requirement that one must believe in the true self first before one can set out, this does not fit my experience or the way in which I came to this. It is out of experiences that the idea developed and fit for me. If you do not have experiences that give you any indication of this distinction, then I can see where the whole enterprise seems pointless. I can also understand your completely pragmatic approach. There is no such thing as fitting, there is simply what works for certain goals. You are a cipher that can align with the most successful procedures.

I hope you will stay open to the possibility that others have experiences that indicate something else about their own natures and not make assumptions about how they came to this belief or what else they must believe because it seems more coherent to you - from the outside.

It does seem like you have answered you own question posed by the thread as far as yourself.

This section seemed odd.

]Leaving aside the problem of desiring to take the path of least resistence - I think the shoulds are problematic only if they are insisted in but no goal or justification for them is given; or if the goal or justification given for them is immoral or undesired from one's own perspective.

E.g. "You should go to medical school." - "Why?" - "You just should."
or "You should go to medical school so that you can be a doctor and earn a lot of money." - "But I don't want to be a doctor."

So, it seems, you have a perspective and undesires. Why would this be? Why would one person not want to be a doctor and another person want to? Of course certain skills or a specific life situation might be the difference rather than some essential nature, but the general way you put forward this example implies that things that might be useful can be undesired and this is not mere resistance to the most pragmatic plan. It seems like in the example above you are making a case for their being authentic resistance to certain choices. Where does that authenticity come from? Perhaps you identity is more tightly wrapped up in what you are not, and this makes it seem like you are not putting forward an essential self.

I'll leave those as rhetorical questions. The thread pretty much went dead for me after this last post of yours.

That's about it. It might be worth considering how one would know that one's true self had been discovered. What would it feel like ? How certain would we be ? Do we honestly believe that we would stop searching at that point ? I think not.

I suppose there may be some people who believe that once they have extricated themselves from ideas about themselves and reality and what they must and should do and they must and should not do, they think they will be at the end. To me it seems like a beginning. For me each time a little more of the BS is out of my head, the ideas about my sinful nature, or what I cannot possibly allow myself to do or achieve or express - as a couple of examples - I do not feel like retiring, but setting out to do things. I do not think I am alone in this.

Seeking one's "true" self is an endless process, a bit like a dog chasing his tail.

I assume you are not as critical of 'endless processes' where the goal is knowledge. A dog chasing its own tail is in the same position at the end of a session as at the beginning. That is not my experience at all.

I suppose there may be some people who believe that once they have extricated themselves from ideas about themselves and reality and what they must and should do and they must and should not do, they think they will be at the end. To me it seems like a beginning. For me each time a little more of the BS is out of my head, the ideas about my sinful nature, or what I cannot possibly allow myself to do or achieve or express - as a couple of examples - I do not feel like retiring, but setting out to do things. I do not think I am alone in this.


I assume you are not as critical of 'endless processes' where the goal is knowledge. A dog chasing its own tail is in the same position at the end of a session as at the beginning. That is not my experience at all.

What I am saying is that the noition of a true self makes no sense. You are talking about learning from your experience, which is amn entirely dofferent matter. Your "true" self is what you are now which is the same thing as your self. What you are now is what has grown out of past actions and experiences.

I mentioned an audit trail. If you accept that our beliefs inform our actions and vice versa ,to some extent, then at any time you are a product of your past. This does not argue against self-improvement; it just makes the "true" redundant

I mentioned an audit trail. If you accept that our beliefs inform our actions and vice versa ,to some extent, then at any time you are a product of your past. This does not argue against self-improvement; it just makes the "true" redundant

If I buy your argument I must say I have a hard time with the idea then of improvement. How can a thing improve. It is what it is. To improve would imply that what it really was trying to be or express before has now been enhanced.

There is simply change. To improve would section out portions of that self and give them extra value and value changes in those portions over and above others. I call those portions true self. In fact I find that phrase is very effective in communication.

I think also it is important that you acknowledge one can believe in a true self, but not assume that retirement comes when you find it.

I got the impression you were actually looking for a way to get to your true self. Not that you had assumed, yet, that there was one, but were interested, perhaps even felt some desire in that direction.

I misunderstood. It was more a rhetorical request, without any belief or real interest on your part.

...
I'll leave those as rhetorical questions. The thread pretty much went dead for me after this last post of yours.

Like we've noticed before, we seem to be very different, we might as well be of different species.
A clash like this last one was to be expected.

If I buy your argument I must say I have a hard time with the idea then of improvement. How can a thing improve. It is what it is. To improve would imply that what it really was trying to be or express before has now been enhanced.

There is simply change. To improve would section out portions of that self and give them extra value and value changes in those portions over and above others. I call those portions true self. In fact I find that phrase is very effective in communication.

I think also it is important that you acknowledge one can believe in a true self, but not assume that retirement comes when you find it.

The dispute between those who claim there is such a thing as "true self", and those who argue that the issue is moot,
is the same as the dispute between theists and non-theists.

By virtue of the content of their claims, the pro-selfers (as are the theists) are superior to the other party.

Sex is great, but it is not vital to our individual survival. It is vital to the survival of the species, but I do not need sex to stay alive.

you do need sex and love, otherwise you're sad and might commit suicide.

you do need sex and love, otherwise you're sad and might commit suicide.

Your so wrong! Not EVERYONE needs sex and love. Sure some people who are deprived of sex and love do get sad and end up committing suicide, but not everybody! There are many people who renounce these things and live long lives. The original point is that sex is not imperative to individual survival! Just because you are co-dependent and need people does not mean that everyone on the planet does.

If I buy your argument I must say I have a hard time with the idea then of improvement. How can a thing improve. It is what it is. To improve would imply that what it really was trying to be or express before has now been enhanced.

There is simply change. To improve would section out portions of that self and give them extra value and value changes in those portions over and above others. I call those portions true self. In fact I find that phrase is very effective in communication.

I think also it is important that you acknowledge one can believe in a true self, but not assume that retirement comes when you find it.

I don't see it as question of of retirement. One never finds it; hence an earlier question of how one would know one had found it. This could only be achieved if one had a fixed idea of what our true self is. If we cannot define what we mean by a true self, the term becomes meaningless.

I cannot envisage anyone arriving at a state and declaring " this is my true self" and then continuing to act in a fixed way from that point on. I believe we change with the passage of time and that at any point we are ourselves as opposed to a future, indefinable "true" self.

What can a person truly want?

Privacy.

I don't see it as question of of retirement. One never finds it; hence an earlier question of how one would know one had found it. This could only be achieved if one had a fixed idea of what our true self is. If we cannot define what we mean by a true self, the term becomes meaningless.

I cannot envisage anyone arriving at a state and declaring " this is my true self" and then continuing to act in a fixed way from that point on. I believe we change with the passage of time and that at any point we are ourselves as opposed to a future, indefinable "true" self.

Let me give an example. I will use one that I think stands the most chance of being successful given your position on some issues. (just wanted to admit my manipulativeness from the start).

A young person raised in a fundamentalist family or under collective upbringing under Pol Pot. He, in this case, has a variety of beliefs drummed into his head – attitudes toward homosexuals, Muslims, the bourgois, women, etc. Vaguely, at the edges of his consciousness, he is not comfortable with some of these ideas, but he decides, if he even notices these nagging small feelings, that it is his problem. The ideas must be right because his parents, his priest, his local communist council, whomever knows better than lowly him. And besides the ___________ backs up what they are saying.

At a certain point in his life he cannot get away from the fact that there are splits in him. He feels like this thoughts and feelings do not fit somehow. He slowly decides to accept his own feelings more and more. He begins to challenge the ideas he has received via direct experience – perhaps a sit down talk with a homosexual coworker who turns out to be, well, a human being who loves his partner – through rational discussion – both with those who have indoctrinated him and with those who have other beliefs and experiences. He also explores his own emotional reactions and attempts to be more accepting of them.

Over time his beliefs change. His way of being in the world changes also. Perhaps in the culture he was from showing emotions or expressing sexual feelings and desire were seen as wrong. He is no longer limited in these ways.

Now, in hindsight, it feels very much like his true self was suppressed by the system of beliefs he grew up in. Also he found that a particular trauma at the age of 10, added to the ways he was cut off from what feels now much more like his true self. He felt things, often, but the feelings were distant, nearly unconscious. He presented to others and lived out a false self. A person he had been told he should be and actually was.

Now he feels less split. He feels like his real feelings are the ones that show in his face. His words match to a greater degree who he really is. He is comfortable with himself.

I think it is perfectly reasonable, nor is it redundant, for him to refer to this as having been a process of coming toward his true self.

And this issues, while perhaps more blunt and obvious in the Khmer Rouge, fundamentalist backgrounds, are still present in homes and childhoods of all sorts of backgrounds.

And none of this strikes me as, of neccessity, being like a dog chasing its own tail, nor what one finds in shallow self-help books. Nor is it a process where one must stop or will want to stop when one feels much more in touch with and at home with one's true self.

I do not think that the use of the phrase 'true self' is silly. I also find that it helps one to sum up processes and experiences that are real in a very direct functional way. That some people may wax shallow and use the same words does not mean we must throw the words away.

Why then we would have to throw away words like 'energy' 'time' 'justice' 'fair trade' 'democracy' and so on.

[QUOTE=sowhatifit'sdark;1762991]Let me give an example. I will use one that I think stands the most chance of being successful given your position on some issues. (just wanted to admit my manipulativeness from the start).

A young person raised in a fundamentalist family or under collective upbringing under Pol Pot. He, in this case, has a variety of beliefs drummed into his head – attitudes toward homosexuals, Muslims, the bourgois, women, etc. Vaguely, at the edges of his consciousness, he is not comfortable with some of these ideas, but he decides, if he even notices these nagging small feelings, that it is his problem. The ideas must be right because his parents, his priest, his local communist council, whomever knows better than lowly him. And besides the ___________ backs up what they are saying.

At a certain point in his life he cannot get away from the fact that there are splits in him. He feels like this thoughts and feelings do not fit somehow. He slowly decides to accept his own feelings more and more. He begins to challenge the ideas he has received via direct experience – perhaps a sit down talk with a homosexual coworker who turns out to be, well, a human being who loves his partner – through rational discussion – both with those who have indoctrinated him and with those who have other beliefs and experiences. He also explores his own emotional reactions and attempts to be more accepting of them.

Over time his beliefs change. His way of being in the world changes also. Perhaps in the culture he was from showing emotions or expressing sexual feelings and desire were seen as wrong. He is no longer limited in these ways.

Now, in hindsight, it feels very much like his true self was suppressed by the system of beliefs he grew up in. Also he found that a particular trauma at the age of 10, added to the ways he was cut off from what feels now much more like his true self. He felt things, often, but the feelings were distant, nearly unconscious. He presented to others and lived out a false self. A person he had been told he should be and actually was.

Now he feels less split. He feels like his real feelings are the ones that show in his face. His words match to a greater degree who he really is. He is comfortable with himself.

I think it is perfectly reasonable, nor is it redundant, for him to refer to this as having been a process of coming toward his true self.

And this issues, while perhaps more blunt and obvious in the Khmer Rouge, fundamentalist backgrounds, are still present in homes and childhoods of all sorts of backgrounds.

And none of this strikes me as, of neccessity, being like a dog chasing its own tail, nor what one finds in shallow self-help books. Nor is it a process where one must stop or will want to stop when one feels much more in touch with and at home with one's true self.

I do not think that the use of the phrase 'true self' is silly. I also find that it helps one to sum up processes and experiences that are real in a very direct functional way. That some people may wax shallow and use the same words does not mean we must throw the words away.

Why then we would have to throw away words like 'energy' 'time' 'justice' 'fair trade' 'democracy' and so on.

I would say that his words and deeds match who he has become, as opposed to his true self.You will remember that I allow for change over time; it's inevitable, and that is what you are talking about. At any time we are what we are, i.e., our selves. I regard the addition of true as superfluous.

Following you example, having found his true self would suggest that further change would not happen because if it did, it would mean moving away from his "true" self. As change will take place , we are then looking at a series of "true" selves, which makes nonsense of the idea of a true self.

You are talking about normal change. The notion of a true self suggests a goal which represents who we truly are. I say we are what we are at any given point in time.

A young person raised in a fundamentalist family or under collective upbringing under Pol Pot.
...

Now, in hindsight, it feels very much like his true self was suppressed by the system of beliefs he grew up in. Also he found that a particular trauma at the age of 10, added to the ways he was cut off from what feels now much more like his true self. He felt things, often, but the feelings were distant, nearly unconscious. He presented to others and lived out a false self. A person he had been told he should be and actually was.

Now he feels less split. He feels like his real feelings are the ones that show in his face. His words match to a greater degree who he really is. He is comfortable with himself.

I think it is perfectly reasonable, nor is it redundant, for him to refer to this as having been a process of coming toward his true self.

...
I do not think that the use of the phrase 'true self' is silly. I also find that it helps one to sum up processes and experiences that are real in a very direct functional way.

There is another way to conceptualize what you are saying:

The person grew up with conflicting values; as do most people.
Having conflicting values causes stress, confusion, feelings of alienation.
People strive to have a consistent system of values. They act in a manner toward greater consistency.
The more consistent their value system, the more "whole" and "unified" the person feels; the more "comfortable with themselves".

The difference between this conceptualization in terms of "conflicting values/striving to have a consistent value system", and the conceputalization in terms of "finding one's true self", is that the first one is pragmatic, actionable, and the other is abstract and requires absolute identification with matter and/or particular mental/emotional states (which leads to further inner conflicts, e.g. "I am not my thoughts about topic x that I had 10 years ago, but I am my thoughts about topic x that I have now.").

[QUOTE=sowhatifit'sdark;1762991]

You are talking about normal change. The notion of a true self suggests a goal which represents who we truly are. I say we are what we are at any given point in time.

I have no problem with way you want to use language. It does not describe certain experiences I and other have had, but if it covers all the ground you want to cover, well, then it is working for you.

There is another way to conceptualize what you are saying:

The person grew up with conflicting values; as do most people.

And most people, it seems, never confront the issue. It is also not simply conflicting values. Or at least for me values seem on the thought end of things. It can be conflicts between ideas (values) and feelings.

Having conflicting values causes stress, confusion, feelings of alienation.
People strive to have a consistent system of values. They act in a manner toward greater consistency.
This makes it sound like the process is greater and greater conformation to certain ideas to the exclusion of others. That is not the process as I experience it. Often it is a stepping away from certain ideas or values into the unknown. This can be in the process of exploring what one actually feels rather than what one should feel or what normal people feel, etc. It is not a movement from Homosexuals are sinners to deciding to adopt a new value that they are human like heterosexuals, some good, some not. But rather an opening into experience even if it seems to challenge thoughts in the head. Where this will lead is not always clear.


The more consistent their value system, the more "whole" and "unified" the person feels; the more "comfortable with themselves".

The difference between this conceptualization in terms of "conflicting values/striving to have a consistent value system", and the conceputalization in terms of "finding one's true self", is that the first one is pragmatic, actionable, and the other is abstract and requires absolute identification with matter and/or particular mental/emotional states (which leads to further inner conflicts, e.g. "I am not my thoughts about topic x that I had 10 years ago, but I am my thoughts about topic x that I have now.").

I may not have explained it well, but for me it is not so much about getting the right thoughts in the head, this can be a sort of aftermath. It is the feeling of living as a unified being who accepts himself - himself in my case - and does not block himself off, or his reactions and feelings. It is the experience of having liberated something that is the center and not the new thoughts in the head. These have come along, but I don't sit around thinking I am the thoughts I have now. I feel much more like I no longer have thoughts that are hurting me, blocking me, telling me to dislike myself, that I cannot be spontaneous, that my desires are suspect.

I am unfettered. (compared to where I was) In the past I identified with my fetters. I thought I was those values, plus what they regulated. Now I am vastly more identified with what is not fettered or split.

[QUOTE=Myles;1763492]

I have no problem with way you want to use language. It does not describe certain experiences I and other have had, but if it covers all the ground you want to cover, well, then it is working for you.

I cannot explain what I mean any better than I have done. Looking at what you have written , I think you are implying that there is more to some forms of experience than experience. That strikes me as odd. Why not be content to say:" I experienced A and that caused me to change my outlook" Talk about a "true self" adds nothing of explanatory value.

[QUOTE=sowhatifit'sdark;1763613]

I cannot explain what I mean any better than I have done. Looking at what you have written , I think you are implying that there is more to some forms of experience than experience. That strikes me as odd. Why not be content to say:" I experienced A and that caused me to change my outlook" Talk about a "true self" adds nothing of explanatory value.
For you Myles, it clearly does not. I do find it is very effective in other contexts.

Like with entropy I find there is a direction. I will not tomorrow have another experience and decide that sexual desire is bad. There is a difference between outlooks I had that did not reflect my true self and those that do. I am not a blank slate despite what all those who have wished to indoctrinate me, including myself, have wanted to believe.

Perhaps you have never had the experience of having a belief that you experienced, perhaps on the edge of consciousness, as an imposition, something almost foreign, an introjection. Then I can see where I seem to be simply making up metaphysical terms.

I do find there are different relationships I have had to conscious outlooks. How they have felt to have them.

There, now I have done my best.

We have each done our best.

What more can be asked of us?

We can leave it there. We disagree.

Fine by me. It's enought to say we look at things differently

A good sense of humor. :D

And most people, it seems, never confront the issue. It is also not simply conflicting values. Or at least for me values seem on the thought end of things. It can be conflicts between ideas (values) and feelings.

That is not the process as I experience it. Often it is a stepping away from certain ideas or values into the unknown. This can be in the process of exploring what one actually feels rather than what one should feel or what normal people feel, etc.

It has been my experience that feelings are extremely unreliable.
Feelings are subject to all sorts of influences - dietary, environmental, the diseases present in the body. At any given moment, it is impossible to know the exact extent of these influences, but it is safe to assume it is there.

Here's my story: I used to be a vegetarian and didn't eat enough/proper supplements, I had a number of health problems.
The feelings I had then - some seemed more "true" than others. This was so for years.
Recently, I got a good dose of a new brand of supplements. It was like a personality change! The feelings that used to seem so "true", were now, with vitamin and mineral levels restored, flimsy and unsubstantiated.

A B12 deficiency can cause a guilt complex. In my case, this can explain my former obsession with Christianity, my thinking that I must obey them.
A good dose of vitamins and minerals didn't simply cure this, of course. I used to be involved in Christianity and had particular attitudes for many years, and my personality formed around that involvement and attitudes, my life was built around them - obviously, it would take a lot of work to extract myself from it. But the restored vitamin and mineral levels did provide the brain with a vastly different perspective - and this purely physiologically.

I could go on with accounts of how nutrition, exercise or lack thereof and diseases more or less subtly, but persistently, affect one's psychology.

Perhaps you yourself have been relatively healthy and haven't been pushed into such realizations. But my body has been very messed up and in those times I have realized how unreliable feelings are, how quickly they can change for seemingly no reason.


And thoughts are usually based on feelings, thereby being equally unreliable.
The only solution I see is to use the times when I feel relatively well and sound, to train myself in thought processes that lead to favorable results. So that when the vitamin and mineral imbalances, allergies, mild poisonings etc. strike, I will have a training ready to override those influences.


Having conflicting values causes stress, confusion, feelings of alienation.
People strive to have a consistent system of values. They act in a manner toward greater consistency.

This makes it sound like the process is greater and greater conformation to certain ideas to the exclusion of others.

Not necessarily.
It can be a process of a greater conformation to certain ideas to the exclusion of others, but it can also be a process of developing a synthesis from a thesis and antithesis.

Here's my own example for the latter:
Years back, I was torn: One the one hand, I so much wanted to ride horses - oh, the speed! On the other hand, I thought that riding is an abuse of the horses; the horses did not ask to have riders on their backs, and it cannot possibly be enjoyable to have to carry around, at full speed, a burden 1/7 of one's weight or more.
Many years later, I resolved this by concluding that given the circumstances of human life and human affairs with animals, the horses (at least in the ideal case) can be given the opportunity to live a relatively healthy live, food, grooming, shelter etc. in return for humans riding them (or having them pull carriages); or, the horses can be bred to live a short life in a stable and then be slaughtered. While neither option is good, the first one seems the better one of the two. Hence my justification that it is allright to ride horses.

It has been my experience that feelings are extremely unreliable.

I have had similar experiences. I could go on and explain how I think about those and what resolved that for me, but all that is rather meaningless given your lack of desire to move in the direction I have. Above I was talking about my experiences and the process I have ended up following. I can say it has helped me immensely and I am pleased and continue. I cannot say that it would do the same for you and there is really little reason to discuss it since you do not feel drawn in that direction. Quite the opposite.

It is a complicated set of issues we have taken up and I think the dangers of universalizing one's experiences is too unavoidable.

It has been my experience that feelings are extremely unreliable.
Feelings are subject to all sorts of influences - dietary, environmental, the diseases present in the body. At any given moment, it is impossible to know the exact extent of these influences, but it is safe to assume it is there.

Here's my story: I used to be a vegetarian and didn't eat enough/proper supplements, I had a number of health problems.
The feelings I had then - some seemed more "true" than others. This was so for years.
Recently, I got a good dose of a new brand of supplements. It was like a personality change! The feelings that used to seem so "true", were now, with vitamin and mineral levels restored, flimsy and unsubstantiated.

A B12 deficiency can cause a guilt complex. In my case, this can explain my former obsession with Christianity, my thinking that I must obey them.
A good dose of vitamins and minerals didn't simply cure this, of course. I used to be involved in Christianity and had particular attitudes for many years, and my personality formed around that involvement and attitudes, my life was built around them - obviously, it would take a lot of work to extract myself from it. But the restored vitamin and mineral levels did provide the brain with a vastly different perspective - and this purely physiologically.

I could go on with accounts of how nutrition, exercise or lack thereof and diseases more or less subtly, but persistently, affect one's psychology.

Perhaps you yourself have been relatively healthy and haven't been pushed into such realizations. But my body has been very messed up and in those times I have realized how unreliable feelings are, how quickly they can change for seemingly no reason.


And thoughts are usually based on feelings, thereby being equally unreliable.
The only solution I see is to use the times when I feel relatively well and sound, to train myself in thought processes that lead to favorable results. So that when the vitamin and mineral imbalances, allergies, mild poisonings etc. strike, I will have a training ready to override those influences.




Not necessarily.
It can be a process of a greater conformation to certain ideas to the exclusion of others, but it can also be a process of developing a synthesis from a thesis and antithesis.

Here's my own example for the latter:
Years back, I was torn: One the one hand, I so much wanted to ride horses - oh, the speed! On the other hand, I thought that riding is an abuse of the horses; the horses did not ask to have riders on their backs, and it cannot possibly be enjoyable to have to carry around, at full speed, a burden 1/7 of one's weight or more.
Many years later, I resolved this by concluding that given the circumstances of human life and human affairs with animals, the horses (at least in the ideal case) can be given the opportunity to live a relatively healthy live, food, grooming, shelter etc. in return for humans riding them (or having them pull carriages); or, the horses can be bred to live a short life in a stable and then be slaughtered. While neither option is good, the first one seems the better one of the two. Hence my justification that it is allright to ride horses.

I see your point which I which I would summarize as: Think vitamins. think brain chemistry, think differently.

Try to have only good thoughts not negative ones about others.

Try to have only good thoughts not negative ones about others.

I agree with your sentiment, but does one achieve it ?

I agree with your sentiment, but does one achieve it ?

It is most difficult to do. I have found that by avoiding people, TV, newspapers and all media, I tend to be able to do this easier. Without outside stimulation it is something that is still hard to do but with practice I'm sure it can be. But who can do that? You'd have to live in a cave as a recluse of some sort wouldn't you?

It is most difficult to do. I have found that by avoiding people, TV, newspapers and all media, I tend to be able to do this easier. Without outside stimulation it is something that is still hard to do but with practice I'm sure it can be. But who can do that? You'd have to live in a cave as a recluse of some sort wouldn't you?

Even in a cave I'd find it difficult to think good thoughts about myself. I need a self-help book which will convinve me that I'm not a miserable bastard, but a loveable, warm, generous bastard.

I'm off to a fine bookstore near me , as the man suggested,

A person who is not contented with themselves internally, will always want something else, externally.