• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Focussing on the Self

Migrated topic.
H

hixidom

Rising Star
A recurrent theme of my LSD experiences is the inability to perceive myself. By that I mean that, whenever I try, I find that trying to look at myself is like trying to turn the mind's eye inside out. I'm not using the word "self" to refer to my body or even my personality, but am using it to refer to the singular point of awareness from which perception stems. Thus looking into a mirror does not accomplish self-experience either. Even if the minds eye were in two places at once, it would take some time for the informational signal to traverse the distance between the two selves. So I don't deny that I can experience my past self. My attempts at self experience usually involve some sort of analogue to a physical sensory organ. For example, such attempts may seem to occur with the use of a metaphysical eye, ear, or finger, and getting close to acheiving that experience feels like being sucked into an infinite loop (not surprisingly, since I'm trying to look at myself looking at myself looking at myself...). So eventually I realized that I might be able to use this apparent phenomenon to define the self: "My self is that which is imperceivable to me" meaning that if I try to perceive something, and I can't do it, then it must be myself.
The definition still doesn't satisfy me because it doesn't seem to differentiate the imperceivability of myself from other types of imperceivability such as the imperceivability of things outside of my light cone (a special relativity concept) or the imperceivability of any objective object (the "thing in itself" ). My girlfriend aptly pointed out that I cannot perceive her mind's eye. So it seems that, from one interpretation, this definition of the self requires that the self encompasses all things, which is a conclusion that I've already accepted for other seemingly unrelated reasons.

So my question is whether or not anybody else has experienced this same phenomenon or has struggled with the concept of viewing the self.
Thanks
Andy
 
Well your post has sparked many questions inside of my head. I can see where you are coming from on this. It is truly hard to perceive the self. At the same time i do not think it is not possible. I think through meditation and exploring the human mind via psychedelics you can get a some what grasp on "Self".
 
I think it's what some people refer to as becoming pure awareness. Like realizing that there actually is no line of separation between subject and object, or at least it is nowhere to be found. Which can be shocking at first because it's in the antipodes of our normal rendering of reality.

"My self is that which is imperceivable to me" can make sense in your discourse, but it is a paradox. A recurrent one. Your self is imperceivable to you [ who is imperceivable to you (who is imperceivable to you ) ... ]. You and yourself are synonymous for that matter, unless you were referring to "You" as a social construct and "Yourself" as your essential, pristine, unscathed self.

I'd say there is no distance between the two selves. There is only two selves if one of them is a disguise we wear, accidentally or not. And in that case, in entheogenic experiences, we are naked.
 
Vodsel said:
I think it's what some people refer to as becoming pure awareness. Like realizing that there actually is no line of separation between subject and object, or at least it is nowhere to be found. Which can be shocking at first because it's in the antipodes of our normal rendering of reality.

"My self is that which is imperceivable to me" can make sense in your discourse, but it is a paradox. A recurrent one. Your self is imperceivable to you [ who is imperceivable to you (who is imperceivable to you ) ... ]. You and yourself are synonymous for that matter, unless you were referring to "You" as a social construct and "Yourself" as your essential, pristine, unscathed self.

I'd say there is no distance between the two selves. There is only two selves if one of them is a disguise we wear, accidentally or not. And in that case, in entheogenic experiences, we are naked.
Click to expand...

I am going to disagree with what you said. Only because of one thing. I think it is possible to perceive yourself. I actually think that you are the only one who can truly perceive yourself. the only reason is because, no one else in the entire world can truly know what is going on inside of your head. No one can read your thoughts or understand your thought process. A person is defined by what goes on in their thoughts. At least that is what i believe in. However, what you said does make a little bit of sense to me and well said.
 
psychedelicbuddha said:
I think it is possible to perceive yourself. I actually think that you are the only one who can truly perceive yourself. the only reason is because, no one else in the entire world can truly know what is going on inside of your head. No one can read your thoughts or understand your thought process. A person is defined by what goes on in their thoughts. At least that is what i believe in. However, what you said does make a little bit of sense to me and well said.
Click to expand...

It is possible to perceive yourself. Perhaps not easily, perhaps partially, perhaps in a complete delusional way, but certainly it is. I was referring to what hixidom said, regarding the inability to perceive himself within a LSD experience, for instance. When the barrier between self and other becomes diffuse, or simply vanishes, and then trying to observe what is going on "inside of your head" loses its meaning because there is no inside and outside.
 
When the barrier between self and other becomes diffuse, or simply vanishes, and then trying to observe what is going on "inside of your head" loses its meaning because there is no inside and outside.
Click to expand...
Like realizing that there actually is no line of separation between subject and object
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but the realisation I'm describing is that if I'm looking at some thing, then that thing cannot be I; I think what I'm trying to say is that consciousness "points" in the outward direction; That what I realise is that I cannot look at aspects of the self without separating myself from them, thus externalizing them.
 
Vodsel said:
psychedelicbuddha said:
I think it is possible to perceive yourself. I actually think that you are the only one who can truly perceive yourself. the only reason is because, no one else in the entire world can truly know what is going on inside of your head. No one can read your thoughts or understand your thought process. A person is defined by what goes on in their thoughts. At least that is what i believe in. However, what you said does make a little bit of sense to me and well said.
Click to expand...

It is possible to perceive yourself. Perhaps not easily, perhaps partially, perhaps in a complete delusional way, but certainly it is. I was referring to what hixidom said, regarding the inability to perceive himself within a LSD experience, for instance. When the barrier between self and other becomes diffuse, or simply vanishes, and then trying to observe what is going on "inside of your head" loses its meaning because there is no inside and outside.
Click to expand...

I can see where He is coming from and where you are coming from. I truly never had one of those experiences. Anytime i do a psychedelic i find that i am complete. that i can have a flow of consciousness that just amazes me to this day.
 
On the contrary, it seems to me that the only conclusion is that nothing is the self; Nothing I can perceive, at least; That the self is Kant's noumenal realm or Wittgenstein's bedrock. I do agree with Vodsel's explanation of the self as pure awareness, though my conclusion only allows this explanation to be true if pure awareness is somehow imperceivable or undefinable.
 
To me the "Self" does not even exist in reality. The Self is of course a very coherent idea in the idle minds of man. But once brought under the light, it seems to vanish in many different places. First of all let us look at what is meant by the self. From what I have read you are trying to find a point whether it be physical or beyond the physical world, that resembles the "eye" per say that experiences everything. To me the "I" is a combination of many different aspects of your "Self". So the Self is the cause of the "I" that we refer to ourselves as. The "I" seems to define what you are in everyone's point of view. Even if you refute the idea that I exists, you find yourself constantly referring to yourself as "I". So what is the "I" that seems to be a direct product of "Yourself"? I is made up, as I said before, of many different parts of you. Many different perceptions if you will. So to say that ONE thing can define you than I would have to disagree. You are many up of many, infinite, ideas, thoughts, actions, opinions. Perceptions.
 
Back
Top Bottom