• unenlightened
    9.2k
    Please do not read this thread, it will only upset you.

    Read this one instead, it hasn't got me or god in it. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3303/metanarratives-identity-self-consciousness

    I was born at an early age - I don't remember much before that, and then I had a childhood, some schooling and various occupations until I became old. I'll spare you the details.

    The details are what make me this particular individual, the way the details of the features of my face make my photo id unique. Without the details, you don't know me from Adam.

    And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
    — Genesis 2:16–17

    Long story short – just as you have ignored my warning above, so Adam had to eat the the fruit. But compare you, me and Adam with a dog, a cat, or a cow. Their story, as WE tell it, is much the same. They are born, learn some stuff, eat some stuff, do some stuff and get old. The big glaring difference is that though they live that story, they never tell it, either to themselves or to each other or to us.

    Psychologically, they do not live in time, but in the continuous present; memories they have, and habits, and these present themselves by association as appropriate to the present moment. Thirst provokes the memory of the way to the water-hole, but there is no story, so no particular individual, no self, and no time. Such is paradise, there is no death, because there is no narrative to end. There is no good and evil, because judgement requires time and there is no time, only the present.
    ——————————————————————————————

    The narrator is the omnipotent god of the story, without whom nothing can be or occur. There can be no story without a narrator, therefore there can be no story without a god.

    So in the beginning, was the word. And the beginning was the beginning of psychological time which is the beginning of the story, the beginning of the narrator, the beginning of self. The story creates time, by recapitulating, and in recollection makes a judgement and comes to know good and evil. Judgement is always from outside - and therefore always of a story, always of a narrative.

    We live in time - in history that dissolves into mythology as a continuous self that dissolves into birth trauma; and at the other end dissolves into apocalypse, death, and judgement. But let's not talk about that, until we have to.

    —————————————————————————————————

    1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. — John 1:1

    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. — John 1:14

    One is always telling the story, or another story – the meta-story, to oneself, the way the devout tell their beads, with obsessive yet inattentive repetition; 'this is the kind of person I am, and this is the world I have to deal with, and this is how I do it.' But one always stands outside the story as narrator to tell the story. One is absent from the story one tells, because the story is related, and even the closest relation is not oneself, in the same way that god is outside his creation.

    The narrative self is always going back in time to tell the story of myself, as I did myself above briefly in the beginning of this post, sparing you the details. And in this recapitulation also, I am telling the story of my starting to tell this story as if from the outside. What could it mean for the narrator to enter the story? For the word to be made flesh?

    And here, I'm afraid, I will lose you, if I haven't already, because I have to lose myself.

    The world as history carries on; everyone continues their interweaving narrative selves as usual, except, for one man, the story has ended. This is enlightenment, the silence of the mind that is not absenting itself from itself in stories and histories. Not that they are denied or ignored, because they are all round in the people, the culture, but they are present, and outside. He responds, he speaks, he even tells stories, but his inner story has ended. He is fully present, and so fully absent.

    When the story is complete, the self story, that is, it does not continue, though history continues, and the body continues - "After the first death, there is no other."

    Only the story of self that is incomplete, fragmentary, suffers death, and all that can be mourned is the imagined continuation of that story. The imagination is one's own, and it is one's own incompleteness that one mourns. 'Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.' So many human lives/stories/identities are begun, and so few are ever completed.
    ——————————————————————————

    It appears, from our position as narrators of a story we are telling ourselves, that the silence before the story begins is the same as the silence after the story has ended. but this is so only if the story ends without being finished. Something has been accomplished, psychologically of great significance. If I can analogise – we are children to be educated, babbling away and filling exercise books with our nonsense, until at last, we 'put away childish things' The enlightened have the mastery of language, whereas we are lost in it, and the dumb beasts have not even enough of it to make a story, never mind get lost in it.

    You are lost in an endless forest of signposts all pointing in different directions. This long post is nothing but another bunch of signposts, making the forest even more impenetrable, including this little one here that says, unhelpfully, "you are here". But where are you going? {there is scope here for a play of words between "Whither away?" an archaic version of the question just put, and the answer the seeker after enlightenment might give, "To wither away".}

    But more likely, you are not lost at all, but have discerned which signs are to be trusted and are marching forward. In that case, you already know to ignore all this childish nonsense, and will be putting everyone on the right road already. Good for you. Alas, I see many armies marching after their leaders, all confident they have found the path all heading in different directions, and putting up many signposts as they go. I am doing the same, but without many followers, I hope, because all my signs say "you are here".

    In Aldous Huxley's Utopian novel, 'Island', less well known than the dystopian Brave New world, The wild mynah birds are taught to speak uplifting phrases - 'Attention!', and 'Here and now!'. Utopian novels are great big signposts, just as dystopian ones are warning signs.

    Personally, I have a liking for old signposts. Although they are sometimes hard to read and covered in graffiti, they came from a simpler time when there were fewer signposts in the forest, and folks may not have been so well lost, and of those, the ones that have survived may have been more so the ones that lead somewhere.

    Here's a bit of that graffiti from the appropriately titled '(What's the Story) Morning Glory.'

    Today is gonna be the day that they're gonna throw it back to you
    And by now, you should've somehow realised what you gotta do
    I don't believe that anybody feels the way I do about you now
    And backbeat, the word is on the street that the fire in your heart is out
    I'm sure you've heard it all before, but you never really had a doubt
    I don't believe that anybody feels the way I do about you now
    And all the roads we have to walk are winding
    And all the lights that lead us there are blinding
    There are many things that I would like to say to you, but I don't know how
    Because maybe
    You're gonna be the one that saves me
    And after all
    You're my wonderwall
    — Noel Gallagher
    —————————————————————————————

    I'm hoping that by now, the only people still reading are those that feel the need to be maybe saved, from a life lived in a dreamtime story that just stops when the heart stops beating. The story so far is that we (humans) have fallen out of the present continuous of living, into a story that is always a moral story, always judgemental. We do not live in what is, but in what was, what might have been what could be and what ought to be and ought to have been.

    There can be no return to the innocence of not knowing. But we live in the story of what ought to be, and it contradicts what is that we still also inhabit, willy-nilly — and the only way to resolve that conflict is to make the word flesh; which is to say to make the life we lead the same as the life we know we ought to lead.

    [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
    — Matthew7

    One is one's own judge, and it cannot be that one finds the world guilty, and oneself innocent unless one is either the Good Lord Himself returned, or else a corrupt judge lying to oneself and pretending to believe it.

    So get your moral story straight first off, by being honest with yourself about yourself. Then follow your conscience as best you can, but do not expect another to follow it. This is a proper self-concern, that leads quickly to a calmer quieter inner life.

    But it is not enough, because one's incomplete self is not enough to complete itself. Therefore one needs help, and when one sees of oneself that one needs help, that one is insufficient, inadequate, one asks, and waits for help. And if one has actually exhausted all one's resources, perhaps the silence responds, or perhaps the exhausted listening brings the silence into being, and perhaps it is the blessed silence at the end of the story, or the end of the post.
  • Baden
    16.4k
    :heart:
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Wow. This is a remarkable post. I enjoyed it. Lots to unpack. Or nothing at all to unpack, depends how you understand it.

    "If you don't know where you're going, all roads will take you there."

    In this game of hide and seek with the self, in this forest, the ignorant count to infinity, the curious stop counting and go seeking, the delusional say they know where to find it whilst erecting signposts, the arrogant say they've already found it, and the self?

    Well, the self merely observes it all, counts nothing, says nothing. Just observes.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    And the beginning was the beginning of psychological time which is the beginning of the story, the beginning of the narrator, the beginning of self.unenlightened
    Interesting post! But I apologize for ignoring your warning, and getting-in over my head. I'll only comment on the quoted line, which corresponds to my own unarticulated & unscientific, notion of first person Self Concept : as the metaphorical recorder & narrator of one's own personal history (memory).

    The older term "soul" may have implied a similar hypothesis : in that, when divested of the flesh (abstracted) the self-image information, presumably recorded in the immaterial mind/soul, is all that's left to stand before the Judge, and give account of its time on earth.

    The scientific/philosophical problem with that religious notion, is "where is the personal history/memory recorded for self and posterity, if not in the brain?" Some may imagine that God or Nature is the master recorder of all events in the world. If so, how does that work? And, if the body-manipulating brain is gone, who pushes the "play" button to replay the story of an individual's life? And how do we know anything about all that non-self non-material preter-natural system?

    Regardless of those picky practical details, it all makes a good story. :smile:
  • Changeling
    1.4k
    If the self is a story comprised of an imaginary character, why then do we create fictional stories on top of it with extra imaginary characters? And where do they come from?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    The scientific/philosophical problem with that religious notion, is "where is the personal history/memory recorded for self and posterity, if not in the brain?"Gnomon

    Thanks for your interest. I assume it is recorded in the brain and the highlights written on the flesh, but also perhaps in the state of the world, the way the famous flap of the butterfly's wing is recorded in the subsequent hurricane. Beyond that I cannot speculate. But perhaps there is no record. Why should there be a record? I have made a story out of a very old story that echoes in your brain for a day, and mine for a week, and dissipates, or maybe in a thousand years someone will be talking about the mythic unenlightened one in conversation with the great Gnomon. and the profound wisdom they displayed.

    But The story i am telling here is that the preservation of the story - of the self - is of no importance; what matters is the completion of the story, in which once is for all.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    The story i am telling here is that the preservation of the story - of the self - is of no importance; what matters is the completion of the story, in which once is for all.unenlightened
    :fire:
  • Manuel
    4.2k
    Interesting and cryptic.

    There is much merit to the idea of what we ought to do and not expecting others to follow. The moral situation is simply overwhelmingly complex, in so far as we blame the world but are also part of it.

    I believe that we have, to varying degrees, levels of hypocrisy in us.

    Nice quote from Oasis, I also get a feeling that part of this post is reflected in another song by them, "D'ya Know What I Mean?"

    :cheer:
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    But one always stands outside the story as narrator to tell the story. One is absent from the story one tells, because the story is related, and even the closest relation is not oneself, in the same way that god is outside his creation.unenlightened

    This is where you lost me. I don't understand why the narrator must be outside the story. Isn't there such a thing as a first person narrative, in which the narrator is part of the story?

    It appears maybe you are distinguishing between a person's real life experience, and the story one tells of it, the narrative being a story and the real life which the person is in, being something other than a story. Is that what you are saying here?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    If the self is a story comprised of an imaginary character, why then do we create fictional stories on top of it with extra imaginary characters? And where do they come from?Changeling

    It's not an imaginary character, necessarily. One can be more or less honest in one's thoughts about oneself. But I think the internal monologue, once established, just tends to go on and on. There seems to be no situation, except extreme shock, where it does not think it worth commenting on things in some way. The nature of identification is that it is always social because it is linguistic. In identifying myself as human, I also Identify the non-human - I am English, they are foreign - I am good, the Nazis are bad. My narrative is as much about the world as about myself, and because it is possible in language to swap things abound to produce counterfactuals, one can make judgements and plans, which one can then try to act out. Or perhaps one does not act them out and they remain just fictions...
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Isn't there such a thing as a first person narrative, in which the narrator is part of the story?Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes indeed. Take a simple example: "I went to the shop and bought a bar of chocolate, and ate it all on the way home."

    No doubt this story could be expanded to Proustian proportions, but never mind that. I am in the story, but I am also telling the story. Present is relating Past, so I am both in the story acting, and outside the story relating. but now I'll add another sentence: "I should have saved some for my wife."

    Now there is another, counterfactual story, where I went to the shop and bought a bar of chocolate and ate some of it on the way home but saved some for my wife. And it is a better story than the true story.

    Where am I now? In a state of conflict between narrative and meta-narrative – between is and ought.

    But the options continue to multiply. That second sentence could be part of the story, a thought I had when I got home, or it could be a new thought I had as the narrator not merely telling the story, but also hearing myself tell it, as if it were someone else's story.

    Such is the tangle of identity produced by two short sentences; and I have a seventy year long narrative... according to my mother, my first word was "More!" I won't inflict the rest on you.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k

    Aren't you just distinguishing two different types of narrative here? One is intended toward telling the truth, the other, the counterfactual, is fictional. Whether you think that you ought to have done the counterfactual is irrelevant, because you have no choice at this time, it is in the past. The true application of "ought" is when we look toward the future, where we have real choice as to what ought to be done.

    So I think that this state of conflict you describe is artificial, contrived, because there is no need to consider alternatives for the past narrative, like you suggest, because we have no choice at this time. However, my statement needs to be qualified, because when the past situation is relatable a the future situation, then there is benefit to considering these options, so that you do not make the same mistake twice. But that opens up a whole different problem for personal "identity".

    If we look at the past, as a narrative, a true narrative, of what cannot be changed, and we look toward the future as possibilities where we need to apply "ought", then how does one relate the two to each other? If we assume a combination of past narrative and future possibilities, as constitutive of the person's identity at the present, you can see that there is a huge hole here, as this is completely insufficient to make up what we assume as personal identity. In fact, the essence of the identity is missing here because what we see as a person's identity is "the way" that a person relates the past to the future. Each of us has a particular way of relating the past to the future, applying the "ought", and I think that this "way" proves to be just as unique to the individual as one's physical appearance.

    This is a sort of philosophical dilemma. "Ought" is one of the most general principles, there ought to be an "ought" for every possible situation that a person finds oneself in, a correct course of action for that person. And moral philosophers often want to say that no matter who the person is, and no matter what the situation is, the applicable "ought" (the specific correct action) ought to be the same for everyone. But this can easily be seen to be a completely wrong-headed way of looking at things. To create this counterfactual scenario which places a different person in the exact same situation as another, would be to deny that the two people are actually different, thereby negating personal identity, and creating a fictitious inapplicable scenario.

    So in reality, each person is unique, each situation that a person is in is unique, and each correct action, or "ought" which is applicable at that time, is also unique. This fact of the true narrative, is what turns moral philosophy on its head. We ought not look at "ought" as a general principle, but we must look at it as unique to each and every different person, who all have a unique "way" of relating the past to the future. This is the only way to apply "ought" to the true narrative. That each person's spatial-temporal location is unique, is proof, through application of the special theory of relativity, that one's relation of past to future (one's present) is also unique. Therefore one's "ought" is unique and particular to that individual. The idea that there is a general ought is a false ideal created from the fictional narrative which looks at distinct individuals as the same.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I think that this state of conflict you describe is artificial, contrived, because there is no need to consider alternatives for the past narrative, like you suggest, because we have no choice at this time.Metaphysician Undercover

    Well I would say that there is no need for any of the stories; but people do make theses stories and identify with them and they feel guilt and shame in relation to the past, because they identify with the past, and in fact I think that this identification with the past is the necessary first step to a projection into the future. It is the self constructed out of the past that ought to do better next time. There can only be any idea at all of the future as a projection from the past. that is the story from the bible of the fall from the paradise of the present into time, full of regrets of the past and worries for the future. the two arise together.
  • creativesoul
    12k


    Nice thread Un...

    I'm reminded of a not so nice thing I've said to people...

    Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to make sense of the world(and yourself).
  • creativesoul
    12k


    It seems to me that you're completely missing the point.

    It's the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and the world around us that constitute the self.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    In Un's trip to the store with the chocolate bar... a person in such a situation could very well cultivate a false memory accompanied by an inaccurate self-depiction should they, willingly or not, allow the fictional 'better' story about oneself to supercede and/or circumvent what happened.

    Given enough of that, the person could very well believe that they are more considerate of others than they actually are/were...

    However, it could also result in being so, should one prioritize such things.
  • Paine
    2.5k

    Your post reminds me of a passage I read recently in Dewey:

    Every case of consciousness is dramatic; drama is an enhancement of the conditions of consciousness.

    It is impossible to tell what immediate consciousness is not because there is some mystery in or behind it, but for the same reason that we cannot tell just what sweet or red immediately is: it is something had, not communicated and known. But words, as means of directing action, may evoke a situation in which the thing in question is had in some particularly illuminating way* It seems to me that anyone who installs himself in the midst of the unfolding of drama has the experience of consciousness in just this sort of way; in a way which enables him to give significance to descriptive and analytic terms otherwise meaningless. There must be a story, some whole, an integrated series of episodes. This connected whole is mind, as it extends beyond a particular process of consciousness and conditions it.
    — John Dewey, Experience and Nature, page 306
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Given enough of that, the person could very well believe that they are more considerate of others than they actually are/were...creativesoul

    People do that too. "I am totally innocent". Sound familiar?

    I am telling a meta-story which I believe to be – Let's say 'realistic', instead of 'true', . It's an abstract metaphorical account of the human condition intended to cover Jesus and Hitler and Richard the Lionheart, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. You seem to be telling a different story, of what someone ought rationally to say or feel or not in relation to a past and future which by my account are created by the story. Past then present then future; that is the narrative of every narrator, including you and me both.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    My ignorance of big John is profound, but Yes to the drama. It emphasises what I need to get to next, which is the social interplay of mutual and antagonistic identifications. "If you're not one of us, you must be foreign."

    {I just googled that made up quote, with slightly random results - visas taxes and death feature.}
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    The story so far is that we (humans) have fallen out of the present continuous of living, into a story that is always a moral story, always judgemental. We do not live in what is, but in what was, what might have been what could be and what ought to be and ought to have been.

    There can be no return to the innocence of not knowing. But we live in the story of what ought to be, and it contradicts what is that we still also inhabit, willy-nilly — and the only way to resolve that conflict is to make the word flesh; which is to say to make the life we lead the same as the life we know we ought to lead.
    unenlightened

    Nicely worded. Is this the crux of your narrative?

    You are lost in an endless forest of signposts all pointing in different directions.unenlightened

    Indeed. Always.

    Interesting story. Unfortunately as someone who has not privileged philosophy and is a fairly crude thinker, I'm not sure what this story is about. Can you dumb it down? (I did read your comments above)
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    in fact I think that this identification with the past is the necessary first step to a projection into the future.unenlightened

    Yes, I think that's the point, without that first step, which is to relate the past to the future, all those past stories are pointless. They are only meaningful with respect to the future.

    There can only be any idea at all of the future as a projection from the past.unenlightened

    This is where we disagree. I would take the opposite position, claiming that we get an idea of the future prior to getting any memory of the past. Wants and desires are the product of a being looking forward in time, toward the future. These are a manifestation of an intrinsic respect for the future. And, it is only when it becomes evident that past experiences may assist in getting what is wanted, that memory is produced, and goes to work. So a child for example is born with wants, but no memory. This is the nature of being in time, when a being comes into existence it has a future but no past. So in reality we are born with an inherent view toward the future, existing as wants and desires, and then the story or narrative of the past is derived from this view toward the future, as a tool to help us deal with the future which we already have respect for. That is why intention has such a big influence over the shaping of a narrative.

    It seems to me that you're completely missing the point.

    It's the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and the world around us that constitute the self.
    creativesoul

    I think you are missing the essence of the self. The self is nestled within intention, which is a view toward the future, getting what is wanted. This means that the defining feature of one's self is one's decision making capacity, the way that a person selects. Story telling is nothing but an amusement, though a person might use it to help get what is wanted sometimes.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Wants and desires are the product of a being looking forward in time, toward the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    I agree with this, but what can one possibly want that one has not experienced in the past? Only unnameable novelty. But we call that emotion boredom, not desire. Desire as a thought is always for 'more'.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I'm not sure what this story is about. Can you dumb it down? (I did read your comments above)Tom Storm

    Sure. Who are you?
    ... someone who has not privileged philosophy and is a fairly crude thinker,Tom Storm

    I'm sure you could say a lot more, but you have said something very similar before, and I guess it is a fairly honest summary of how you identify yourself in relation to the other folk on this site, who in general have more so privileged philosophy and are more subtle thinkers.

    This is an idea you have of yourself that you identify with, and claim as your self, in relation to some meaningful others. There must be many other relations, familial, professional, neighbourly, social, from which you derive all sorts of other characterisations — the joker of the family, the only one in the office who actually does anything, the fight defuser at the bar, the guy who always came top in metalwork at school. And the sum of these various ideas is your 'narrative identity'. and all your experiences are the experiences of that identity, and your response are the responses of that identity, which develops through time with experience. And this self is always comparative and thereby judgemental - I am smarter than a brick and faster than a snail, but not as beautiful as a sunset.

    A non-linguistic animal cannot form a narrative identity; they learn things - not to eat the yellow snow, but they never form the identity "I don't like yellow snow", they just avoid it when they see it. So they do not live in time, psychologically. they are always just here and now, with whatever they know, which is nothing of themselves.

    And the crux of all this as you have correctly identified, you crude thinker, you, is that I propose a state of enlightenment, where the self is 'transcended' and one again lives without time and without the comparing judgement that becomes morality, but retaining the glorious creative potential of language. This is the fulfilment of human potential, and the end of the narrative self that otherwise has to end in mere death.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Some folk may find an echo here and there of this:

    “Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope,tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss.What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”
    ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

    I find this really annoying, please never mention it.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Firstly, thanks for taking the trouble.

    This is an idea you have of yourself that you identify with, and claim as your self, in relation to some meaningful others. There must be many other relations, familial, professional, neighbourly, social, from which you derive all sorts of other characterisations — the joker of the family, the only one in the office who actually does anything, the fight defuser at the bar, the guy who always came top in metalwork at school. And the sum of these various ideas is your 'narrative identity'. and all your experiences are the experiences of that identity, and your response are the responses of that identity, which develops through time with experience. And this self is always comparative and thereby judgemental - I am smarter than a brick and faster than a snail, but not as beautiful as a sunset.

    A non-linguistic animal cannot form a narrative identity; they learn things - not to eat the yellow snow, but they never form the identity "I don't like yellow snow", they just avoid it when they see it. So they do not live in time, psychologically. they are always just here and now, with whatever they know, which is nothing of themselves.
    unenlightened

    Yep. Good, all this is something I have considered for many years.

    And the crux of all this as you have correctly identified, you crude thinker, you, is that I propose a state of enlightenment, where the self is 'transcended' and one again lives without time and without the comparing judgement that becomes morality, but retaining the glorious creative potential of language. This is the fulfilment of human potential, and the end of the narrative self that otherwise has to end in mere death.unenlightened

    I see. Yes some of this resonates fairly well and is not dissimilar to positions I hold (and were probably influenced by Narrative Therapy; my background is in community work). I was unable to glean this from your OP. The most difficult thing most of us carry around with us are our personal stories - generally understood as judgments about who we are and who we are not.

    I am unclear how 'comparing judgment' becomes morality.

    Do you have a view about how language maps onto reality or do you see it as 'glorious' metaphor?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I am unclear how comparing judgment becomes morality.Tom Storm

    I am a bit unclear myself, and thank you for your perceptive comments and questions. Here is something one can hear from time to time on the streets:

    "Be good for Mummy." We know what this means; stop jumping in the puddles, putting sweets in the trolley, commenting loudly on that man with no legs, 'look, Mummy he's got no legs, why hasn't he got any legs?' and hold hands while we cross the road.

    We learn not to do what we want to do in the moment, but to do what Mummy wants, because we are dependent on Mummy. That is, not to be what we are - that is bad - but to be good, which is what mummy wants us to be. Self-denial is born as 'the good', and self-indulgence as 'the bad'. and this judgement that is the (M)other's judgement is internalised as part of one's identity.

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
    4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
    5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Genesis.

    1 In the beginning Mummy created the home and the child.
    2 The child was without self, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Mummy was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3 Then Mummy said, “Be what i say”; and the child was what she said.
    4 And Mummy saw the child being what she said, that it was good; and Mummy divided the child from himself.
    5 Mummy called the repressed child 'Being good, and the spontaneous child She called Being naughty. So the evening and the morning were the first day of the moralising child.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Mummy called the repressed child 'Being good, and the spontaneous child She called Being naughty. So the evening and the morning were the first day of the moralising child.unenlightened

    Nicely done.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Thanks! every thread needs musical soundtrack. That'll do nicely!
  • Paine
    2.5k


    Well, I think Dewey is acknowledging the discontinuity of the 'narrator' as you describe it but sees the activity to be grounded in a process where we belong rather than a condition of exile.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.