Origin of the SELF (and do reptiles have souls?)

MONDAY, 5 JULY 2004

A short dialogue

“Have you ever wondered about the origin of the self? What could possibly be the origin of the self?”

“Well, birth is certainly a reasonable answer.”

“Define ‘birth’.”

“Biological separation of mother and child. I would say the precise moment is the cutting of the umbilical cord. I think that’s the most dramatic moment of separation between the two physical entities.”

“So, the moment the umbilical cord is cut, is the moment of the birth of the self, the moment the new person becomes aware of his own, separate existence?”

“That sounds sensible enough, does it not?”

“Would you say only humans – members of the species Homo sapiens – have consciousness of their own unique existence? Would you say animals have a similar consciousness?”

“What kind of animal?”

“Many people would probably first think of dogs and cats.”

“Pets, but then surely also baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas …”

“Well, let’s say all mammals, then.”

“Or, all mammals born with umbilical cords.”

“Rats?”

“Well, rats are mammals … and mice.”

“And whales. But if a rat has consciousness of its own unique existence, what about an ostrich? And if you reckon that an ostrich does not have consciousness of its own unique existence, why not?”

“According to our reasoning, because an ostrich is not a mammal. Because ostriches lay eggs, there is no dramatic moment of separation.”

“It doesn’t sound right that a common rodent has consciousness of its own unique existence, but not as large a … creature as an ostrich, just because it hatches. This means a giant creature like a dinosaur also did not have consciousness of its own unique existence, just because there is no umbilical cord, or there wasn’t. And what about egg-laying mammals?”

“Well, an egg-laying mammal lays an egg, so there’s no umbilical cord, anyway. Let’s say then for the moment that ostriches and other large egg-laying creatures also possess consciousness of their own existence.”

“What about insects? What about smaller organisms?

“Amoebas?”

“And parasites and bacteria. How do they fit into the whole thing?”

“It’s difficult to say. Let’s stick for the moment with mammals and the large egg-layers.”

“Reptiles? If an ostrich qualifies, then a crocodile must qualify. And if the largest snake qualifies, then the smallest snake must qualify …”

“Let’s just first go back to the question about origin … but wait, what exactly are we talking about? What exactly is the ‘self’?”

“A few minutes ago we referred to the consciousness of own separate existence. Let’s see what a dictionary says …”

[The following terms and definitions are taken from Psigologie-Woordeboek (Dictionary of Psychology), by Gouws, Louw, Meyer & Plug (1979). The original source is in Afrikaans; the quoted definitions are my translations.]

self

A term with a variety of meanings, of which the following are the most important:

1. The person’s view of himself, i.e. a synonym for SELF-CONCEPT.

2. All the person’s characteristics, i.e. PERSONALITY.

3. The core of the personality, i.e. a synonym for PROPRIUM.

4. The agent or executor of behaviour, i.e. the “I”.

5. The substratum of behaviour, i.e. a synonym for PSYCHE.

6. (W. James) Any of a range of aspects of a person as it emerges in different life situations or areas, e.g. the social self, the religious self and the professional self.

self-concept

A person’s perception and evaluation of himself. This includes cognitive, emotional and evaluative elements. Synonyms: SELF-COMPREHENSION, SELF-ESTEEM and SELF. Compare. IDEAL SELF and BODY IMAGE.

ideal self

(C.R. Rogers) The totality of characteristics that the individual would want to have. The assumption is that a person has such wishes in order to meet conditions for acceptance.

body image

A person’s subjective representation of his own body. It can include one or more of the following aspects: the subjective and more or less conscious idea that a person has at every moment of the position, posture and movement of his body; a person’s distinctive experience of his own body; and a person’s evaluation of his body or parts of it in terms of aspects such as attractiveness, masculinity, femininity or health.

personality

A term which in its broadest sense refers to the integrated and dynamic organisation of an individual’s psychological, social, moral and physical qualities, as it is reflected in his interaction with his environment and especially with other people, and as determined by the interaction between constitutional and environmental factors. As the personality gradually develops during the individual’s life cycle and is therefore never static, the term usually refers to the pattern of characteristics at a given time during the individual’s life.

proprium

(G. W. Allport) The core of the personality. It entails those aspects of the person with which he feels himself most closely and intimately involved, for example, his most important values and objectives.

psyche

The hypothetical substratum or carrier of all experience and behaviour. […] A variety of terms is used besides psyche to refer to the hypothetical substratum of behaviour, e.g. spirit, person, personality, individual and organism. Synonyms: SOUL and SELF.

soul

1. (Theology) The immortal (and non-physical) aspect of the person. […]

“I like the parts about body image and psyche. What do they say about the ideal self?”

“They reckon you cherish the notion of an ideal self because you want to be accepted.”

“Want to be accepted? I have an ideal image of myself in my head, but if more people than the current handful accept me, I’ll definitely get nervous!”

“I don’t know if you picked it up, but not one of the authors of those definitions succeeded in properly caging their target. It’s as if everyone tries to get a grip on a fairly slippery bar of soap.”

“Let’s see: a person’s view of themselves … a person’s characteristics … the core of the personality … the agent or executor of behaviour … any of a range of aspects of a person as it emerges in different life situations or areas … a person’s evaluation of themselves … an integrated and dynamic organisation of qualities … the carrier of all experience and behaviour … the immortal and non-material aspect of a person …”

“As I say, a slippery chunk of soap. Let’s first concentrate on a human’s consciousness of his or her own self.”

“Consciousness of self? Just remember, if the self is ‘X’, the self cannot also be ‘consciousness of X’.”

“Perhaps the self is not an ‘X’, perhaps the self is awareness … of … something, or everything. Yet, self cannot be equated to consciousness … Do you ever get the feeling you’re trying to articulate something for which your vocabulary is too primitive?”

“Yes, often.”

“Nevertheless, the awareness of … own living, physical, separate existence must surely arise from somewhere, at some point it must go from nothing to something, from ‘0’ to ‘1’. If this point does not lie with the cutting of the umbilical cord, what other possibilities are we looking at?”

“Conception?”

“Can’t be … can you imagine a fertilised egg with consciousness, not to mention a sophisticated consciousness of its own existence?”

“Can it be said that the self does not arise from one moment to the next but that it rather develops slowly?”

“Can it be said that the body does not originate from one moment to the next because it develops slowly?”

“Let me see if I understand this correctly. The physical body originates from the mother – and to be thorough it should be mentioned, after the mother’s egg was fertilised with a physical contribution from the father. According to the umbilical theory it can be said that the new-born human’s consciousness of himself or herself also arises from the mother, in the sense that initially there is only one consciousness – that of the mother, then after ten or twenty or thirty weeks brain activity in the foetus is detected, but certainly nothing that could be called consciousness of own unique existence – there’s no personality, no view of him- or herself, no evaluation of him- or herself, and then the moment the umbilical cord is cut there is undeniably more than one case of consciousness – the mother’s consciousness and the child’s consciousness.”

“Consciousness of own, separate existence perhaps, but still no personality. I mean, no new-born baby has any view of him- or herself, no self-evaluation …”

“Not yet, but you cannot deny that an extraordinary event occurs from one moment to the next.”

“Doesn’t it make you think of Frankenstein who animates his project, and gives it consciousness of himself, with an electric shock? Except in the case of the new-born human, the electric shock is the severance of the umbilical cord.”

“But in the story the electric shock also stimulated brain activity. From brain activity, consciousness arose. In the case of real humans, the foetal brain is already active weeks before birth, weeks before the cutting of the umbilical cord. Whether the foetus is aware of anything, and if indeed, of what, is of course a different question.”

“Let me make a statement: I am now, at this point, Monday, 5 July 2004 at 12:48 in the afternoon aware of myself as a distinct entity, separate from inanimate objects in my environment (except for the chair on which I’ve been sitting for hours), and physically removed from all other living creatures. If I should die now from sudden seizure, only I would die. If anyone else in the area were to die at this moment of a heart attack, only that person would die – I would continue. I am aware of this separateness. I am also aware of another type of attachment, what we call in everyday speech an emotional attachment to people I have known since I … well, since I can remember. I am also aware of the fact that I have a fairly unique personality, that I have a particular view of myself and that certain aspects of my person emerge in different situations. I am aware of all these things. My question now, at what point did I become aware, for the first time, of myself, of my separateness, of my existence as a separate entity? And if this point is not the origin of what can ultimately be referred to as the self, what is, then?”

“It’s hard to put a finger on a single point. One must also remind yourself that ‘self’ cannot be equated to brain activity, and cannot necessarily be equated to consciousness.”

“And brain activity also does not necessarily mean that there is consciousness.”

“Nevertheless, even if the ‘self’, or a consciousness of own unique existence is understood as a result of a slow process that happens in small increments, there still has to be a point of origin. There must, necessarily, be a point of origin! Where this point is, when this moment of more than just flesh and blood coming into being occurs, however elementary, touches the essence of human existence.”

“Then we don’t even speculate about the possible similarity between human consciousness and appreciation of own existence, and what other mammals experience.”

“And birds, reptiles, fish, insects … trees?”

______________________

“I, now” and related notes

SUNDAY, 4 JULY 2004

Is “Person A” the same person as she was five years ago? Despite ageing, and taking into account the effects of lifestyle on her appearance and physical well-being, she is probably still recognisable as the same person. However, psychologically she is merely related to the person she was five years ago. To say she is psychologically the same person, is not too different from alleging that one of my two sisters and I are the same person, just because we come from the same womb.

By law, this person is still “Person A”. She is still responsible for contracts she had signed five years ago. She can also still be held responsible for criminal acts she may have committed five or ten years ago.

She also still carries the joys and burdens of choices she has made, or incidents in which she has been involved any time during her past.

The SELF, however, does not remain constant. “SELF 2004 of Person A” is only psychologically related to “SELF 1999 of Person A”.

It can also be asked whether “SELF May 2004 of Person X” is the same as “SELF July 2004 of Person X”, or just related. The answer is again that the two are only related, but probably more closely than “SELF 1995 of Person X” and “SELF 2003 of Person X” (a particular truth for Person X, which cannot necessarily be applied to Person A).

One can even go further and ask about the relation between “SELF 4 July 2004 at 16:34 of Person X” and “SELF 4 July 2004 at 16:33 of Person X”. The answer is the same: still only related, but there is a high probability that the degree of relation is closer than in the case of, for example, “May SELF” and “July SELF”. (Again, any mention of relation in the case of Person X is not necessarily valid for Person A, because five minutes – even one minute – can make a dramatic difference in one person’s life, while relatively little may change over the course of a month in another person’s life.)

______________________

Enlightened and unenlightened – brilliant nine

SATURDAY, 3 JULY 2004

The difference between the ENLIGHTENED and the UNENLIGHTENED

The UNENLIGHTENED says: This is who and what I am, so I should just accept it.

The ENLIGHTENED says: These are the cards I’ve been dealt, and these are the resources at my disposal. Here are my capabilities and my limitations, and here are my interests. Considering all these things, I declare a particular vision of WHO and WHAT I WANT to be, and WHERE I would prefer to be this person. Let the work begin.

SUNDAY, 4 JULY 2004

Salute to the brilliant nine! (out of every ten)

One statement that does not get nearly the attention it deserves: People are brilliant! People are magnificent creatures who manage to survive and even live happy lives to a ripe old age, this despite the fact that they know or understand bugger all about their own species, and about how human beings function.

Someone might say, “Maybe they know more than you think.”

My opinion is, of course, most people know something, and of course they understand many things. But taking into account the totality of what can be known, what people know and understand represent such a fraction of the whole that one can hardly be blamed if you use a somewhat vulgar phrase to indicate the amount of knowledge and understanding you think they possess.

“Are you not also one of this species?” an intelligent reader may inquire.

Yes, I will answer, but I think I can get away with it by now to say that I am not nearly as ignorant as nine out of every ten people on the street.

______________________

Why does a teenager rebel?

SATURDAY, 3 JULY 2004

I reckon a teenager who is judged by conventional standards to be in a phase of rebellion is reacting against his own self, against the people he holds responsible for what he sees as his inadequate given self, and possibly even against the environment in which this given self was born and raised.

It may be attributed to the fact that I am more exposed to teenagers in a certain cross-section of society, but it does appear that the “rebellious teenager” is a more common sight in developed, industrialised countries, where fragmented communities share a single urban landscape, and rich and poor rub shoulders on a daily basis, compared to communities where a subsistence economy is the norm, with narrower, more traditional connections between individual members of the community, and a closer cultural and socio-economic relationship between different local communities.

One could postulate that teenagers in urban communities in industrialised countries have more reason to feel ill-equipped for the lives they want to live, or even for the lives that are expected of them. Young people in these areas are after all more aware of other individuals in the same community or in other communities – both locally or in other areas – who at least seem to be much better equipped than they are.

I also believe – although I can only risk a humble opinion on this – that the particular economic environment in which teenagers indirectly find themselves, or where they know they will find themselves as adults, are conducive to feelings of inadequacy. Socio-economic position – where the teenager finds himself vis-à-vis his parents’ economic activities, and where he believes he will likely end up as an adult, as well as competition with peers in terms of material possessions intensify internal conflict within the teen between his view of what he is at that moment, and what is presented to him as the ideal.

Finally, I believe that too many adults, or then in this case specifically the adults in developed countries who have to fulfil the role of parents of teenagers do not have the slightest understanding of the processes of identity formation, nor do they have any idea of the most elementary philosophical issues that teenagers are confronted with. This lack on the side of the parents contribute to the fact that teenagers try to formulate answers to the questions of WHO, WHAT and PLACE in their own ways, and sometimes in any way that is remotely satisfactory. Ignorance is once again the culprit. Enlightenment is once again salvation …

______________________

I still believe …

SATURDAY, 3 JULY 2004

Allow me to lay some truths on the table:

1. Identity plays a vital role in the normal functioning of an individual.

2. The particular community in whose midst an individual is born and where he or she grows up plays a central role in the formation of identity.

3. It is very common that a particular religion is closely connected with a particular community; this particular religion is in many cases a crucial determinant of identity for people who were born and who grew up in this community.

4. For the adherents of various religions, it is essential to lay claim to the universal application of a particular religious “truth”.

5. It is understandable if a person who was born and who grew up in a community where a “universal application” religion is a key determinant of identity, continues to recite these claims for the sake of their own particular identity, and also that they will communicate these claims to the next generation.

A question: Can a rational person be blamed if he has a sceptical attitude towards the claim to “universal truth” by the adherents of any particular religion?

To put it differently:

a) Communities all around the world function as sources of particular identity.

b) To question, as an outsider, the validity of a particular community as a source of identity, simply because your own identity does not come from that source, is illogical. (This would mean that someone who was born and who grew up outside your community can also question the validity of your community as a source of identity because their identity did not originate from the folds of your community.)

c) A particular religion is in many cases closely connected to a particular community, and plays a pivotal role in defining identity for people born in that community.

d) Community A is thus equal to Community B as a source of identity.

e) It can also be said that Religion A is equal to Religion B as a source of identity.

Three questions:

1. On what basis can followers of Religion A, taking into account the above points, still insist on universal application of their “truths” – across all historical, cultural, and other boundaries?

2. On what basis can the followers of Religion A – most likely followers of that particular religion because that particular religion had been a primary given factor in the process from which their identities developed – make the assertion that the value of their religion extends beyond the value of Religion B – that plays a similar role as a determinant of identity in Community B?

3. Where can the line be drawn between religion as a transmission medium of “timeless truths” (no matter how true they may be), and religion as a determinant of identity?

After thorough consideration of this subject, there remains a question that one cannot resist the temptation to ask: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

It’s easy to recite one of the principles of secular religion and answer, “The truth is relative.”

However, I still believe that there is an ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL TRUTH. I also believe that the particularity of fate data with which everyone is confronted at birth, the givenness of instruments with which to express an awareness of individual self, and the significant role of religion as a co-determinant of identity are all pieces of the puzzle that is the TRUTH.

Finally, do I think it is possible for a human being – a living member of the species Homo sapiens – to know the absolute, universal, timeless truth?

My answer remains, without doubt, no.

______________________