https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15556/existential-self-awareness/p1
@Wayfarer

My guess is you will bring some Buddhist concepts to this. Suppose you were to formulate an answer without that- let's say it had to use common everyday language, and/or standard philosophical jargon. What would you say? In a Buddhist sense, you might agree with Schopenhauer that Buddhist practice is what the self-aware animal must look to. I just wondered what else you might say. Is there a definite conclusion that is often biased away, for creatures that have self-awareness of existence? Is there a definite course of a stream from this fact that we are self-aware that is trying to be diverted by the stones of biases?

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

Only that it is possible either to be or not to be 'existentially self-aware' ...

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way?

I suppose that such a species would value immortality-projects (i.e. fetishes / technologies) higher than any other – probably as the basis of all other – values.

In a Buddhist sense, you might agree with Schopenhauer that Buddhist practice is what the self-aware animal must look to. — schopenhauer1

Well, look at the mythological description of the origin of Siddhartha's quest. He comes of age sorrounded by luxury and shielded from misfortune and suffering. But then he undertakes excursions outside the palace walls with his trusty charioteer, and sees the 'four sights'. Which four sights? An old man, bent over and walking very slowly with a stick. A sick man, in a state of distress. A corpse being escorted to the burning ghats. And finally a renunciate (sramana) with a serene countenance. This set the curriculum, so to speak, for Siddharta's quest, culminating in his realisation as the Buddha, by which he was forever liberated from the round of saṃsāra - sickness, old age and death.

As to the relationship of humans and animals - as is well-known Buddhism is generally a humane religion, never having practiced animal sacrifice (unlike Vedic brahmanism.) Nevertheless Buddhists do not agree that humans are on the same plane of existence as animals, as humans have sufficient intelligence to hear the teaching and follow it. (See David Loy, Are Humans Special?, discussing Buddhist views on the significance of human life. Although I'm well aware that regarding human life as somehow different or 'special' is nowadays a very politically-incorrect stance, which I'm reminded of anytime I post about it.)

But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence?

'Axiology, derived from the Greek words “axios” (value) and “logos” (study), is the philosophical exploration of value. It encompasses the examination of what is valuable and why, exploring the nature of values, their hierarchy, and their relationship with individuals, societies, and cultures. Axiology encompasses both ethics (the study of moral values) and aesthetics (the study of beauty and taste).'

So, in the case of Buddhism, the basis of value - the fundamental axiology, if you like - is the ubiquitity and unavoidable nature of suffering, old age and death. Its formulaic exposition is always given in those terms - you will loose what you love, be beset by things you don't like, suffer, and die. Those are given facts of existence. Liberation from that (nibbana, Nirvāṇa) is the extinction of the factors that drive continued existence in the mode of existence subject to these conditions.

So, in the case of Buddhism, the basis of value - the fundamental axiology, if you like - is the ubiquitity and unavoidable nature of suffering, old age and death. Its formulaic exposition is always given in those terms - you will loose what you love, be beset by things you don't like, suffer, and die. Those are given facts of existence. Liberation from that (nibbana, Nirvāṇa) is the extinction of the factors that drive continued existence in the mode of existence subject to these conditions. — Wayfarer

Ok, so not quite following this request:

My guess is you will bring some Buddhist concepts to this. Suppose you were to formulate an answer without that- let's say it had to use common everyday language, and/or standard philosophical jargon. What would you say? — schopenhauer1

:razz: But I think the way that was phrased it was unclear that I didn't want any mention of Buddhism, just everyday or normal philosophical jargon (not translate Buddhist terms into everyday language). But that's okay, I can work with that, but veering away from the strictly Buddhist bent, just its implications...

So existence is basically a "suffering", in terms of this definition being the temporariness of satisfied states, and the initial lack that we feel, an incompleteness that is basically never-ending.

As I stated here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944343

But the cruel part is the "fooling" aspect. As the human animal, unlike mere instinct or simpler forms of experience that other animals exhibit, is that we make "goals" for ourselves. And those goals often are thwarted, and we are disappointed, or when they are reached, they are but temporary, and thus "the vanity" of Ecclesiastes. And throughout all this will-thwarting-temporary satiation, we have the anxieties and physical ailments of social and physical harms. We are self-aware, we know this. Yet what biases delude us?

The ever pursuit of stability (work/home). The ever pursuit of social bonds (love, relationships, friendships, family), and all sorts of self-limiting things to focus the mind (hobbies, interests, studies, and other toys and imaginative wonderings). But if Schopenhauer is right, these are temporary, not satiating, delusionary, and often lead to more pain. But even more tragic, is it prevents someone from understanding this very nature of Will which is so ever-present in the dialectic of self-awareness of existence itself. Life itself should not be imposed.

THAT IN FACT, SELF-AWARENESS ITSELF LED TO THE ANXIETIES THAT LED TO THE IMPOSITION OF MORE SELF-AWARENESS :scream: — schopenhauer1

@Wayfarer
Added a bigger part of the quote from the linked post above.

@Wayfarer
I wonder, with the profusion of media, that comedy and the overuse of irony adds to the diversions from the stream. More stones. As long as you can add a light-hearted quip, you are saved for now... Go about your day. Anxiety (not really) thwarted. Face saved.

So existence is basically a "suffering", in terms of this definition being the temporariness of satisfied states, and the initial lack that we feel, an incompleteness that is basically never-ending. — schopenhauer1

Right. As you say, similar to Schopenhauer, where he converges with Buddhist and Hindu ideas.

But the cruel part is the "fooling" aspect. As the human animal, unlike mere instinct or simpler forms of experience that other animals exhibit, is that we make "goals" for ourselves. And those goals often are thwarted, and we are disappointed, or when they are reached, they are but temporary, and thus "the vanity" of Ecclesiastes. And throughout all this will-thwarting-temporary satiation, we have the anxieties and physical ailments of social and physical harms. We are self-aware, we know this. Yet what biases delude us? — schopenhauer1

But isn't it an inevitable consequence of being human, in a way that it is not for animals? Hereunder an excerpt from a powerful essay by another contemporary Buddhist, Zoketsu Norman Fischer, which was written as a reflection on 9/11 and the religious rationale for terrorism (although that particular aspect is not relevant at this point). I quote it, because I think it's a plausible, existential account of the source of the angst for self-aware beings such as ourselves.

In his book The Theory of Religion, translated by Robert Hurley (Zone Books, 1992), Georges Bataille analyzes the arising of human consciousness as it emerges out of animal consciousness and shows how religious sensibility necessarily develops from this. His argument goes like this:

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my me, though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it the sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity.

Of course, much more need be said, and this is only an excerpt, but I think it frames the issue well.

Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

Damn that comes close to a lot of themes I've explored on here. That's a good one.

Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world.

I like...

Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my me, though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

Yes, great point.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it the sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — Wayfarer

Good point.

Of course, much more need be said, and this is only an excerpt, but I think it frames the issue well. — Wayfarer

Yes it does, and corresponds very much to what I've been saying. Human being and (other) animal being has a difference in kind, that is a gulf, and it creates problems for us. But in this particular thread, I am also teasing out that there seems to be entailments with this "self-knowledge".

Edit: One of them is the self-recognition of the process described here.. but are there others? This is clearly not immediate, but indeed is a conclusion one makes from self-recognition. Is there something more immediate with knowing about this existence?

More edit: An inevitable conclusion that gets diverted with Pollyannas?

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

By definition it implies everything else? So, yes.

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though.

But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence? — schopenhauer1

What does this mean? To guess at what you are asking, all existential beings operate under a system of values - in some form or another.

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

Being aware of one's own inevitable death sometime in the future.

entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

Desiring to be morally Good.

If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though. — I like sushi

What are we aware of by being self-aware of existence? What is the content of our/everyone's existence?

"Other" I guess. We demarcate ourselves by how far our sense of authorship extends. We are novelty and pattern seekers. The regular "thing" that steers through sense is "self" I guess?

What do you think?

Read some of the previous posts to understand what I'm getting at. The gist is a pessimistic understanding. Self-awareness of existence entails an understanding of suffering. The quote from Wayfarer describes the process:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944435
This is more-or-less the conclusion:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/944343

With the self-awareness, we divert the attention of the immediate conclusion. It is the biases of Pollyannaisms and "but what fors".. As I have described throughout the thread. So I would say read the thread as a whole to see what I mean, then reply.

Will do.

In the mean time I think you might find this relevant:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-149797920?source=queue&autoPlay=false

What is one attains 'enlightenment'? Is life bleak then?

It looks very much what you call "Will" is what I framed above as "Self".

The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking".

I enjoyed the essay on boredom, thanks.

It looks very much what you call "Will" is what I framed above as "Self".

The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking". — I like sushi

Will is Schopenhauer's label for the restlessness. The boredom essay sort of captures it. Boredom was very important to Schopenhauer, as it showed Will's negative (lacking that is) nature. That even just existing carries with it a sort of lack. Hence my quote here:

So we are a lifeform that is self-aware of its existence. Consciousness, even without self-awareness, is pulled along by some drives- hunger, boredom, mating, etc. Self-consciousness brings with it a negative element to it as well (as in "lacking" something). That is to say, we have hunger- lack satiation or the stimulation of the senses in the form of food. In a more general sense, we lack a general satiation of the mind- a profound angst or boredom. We lack social stimulation in the form of loneliness and being lovelorn. — schopenhauer1

What is one attains 'enlightenment'? Is life bleak then? — I like sushi

Not sure about 'enlightenment', but a sound moral education can do much to alleviate the harms inherent in human nature. It isn't that we are 'evil', it's that we have natural 'animal' urges powered by an unusual level of intelligence. Ethics and morality help us manage ourselves better.

Life is not so bleak in a decent and orderly society. When we descend to indecent disorder, such as prevails in Sudan at this point, it becomes very bleak. Life is bleak in Gaza and getting bleaker in Ukraine, Lebanon, Venezuela, et al. Everybody has periods of indecent disorder, at one point or another, usually collectively but sometimes individually.

Self-awareness is key in moral education. We have to know what dangers lurk in our personal natures, and then do something about it. No guarantees of goodness in that, but sometimes we try.

Speaking of the Will and the power of boredom, one is reminded of Pascal's summary, "All of humanity’s problems stem from our inability to sit quietly in a room alone".

Speaking of the Will and the power of boredom, one is reminded of Pascal's summary, "All of humanity’s problems stem from our inability to sit quietly in a room alone". — BC

Schopenhauer in a nutshell. The process is something like described here from Wayfarer's post:

In his book The Theory of Religion, translated by Robert Hurley (Zone Books, 1992), Georges Bataille analyzes the arising of human consciousness as it emerges out of animal consciousness and shows how religious sensibility necessarily develops from this. His argument goes like this:

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my me, though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it the sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — Wayfarer

That is to say, the irrevocable breach of our existence into the framework of conceptual objectification of the world. The self-and-other, the self that needs goals, the self that suffers, is felt in the immediacy of self-awareness.

Right. To draw on an element of the current philosophical lexicon, perhaps 'the Buddhist way' is to learn to deconstruct this sense of the alienated self by seeing through the process that drives it - not in an abstract theoretical sense, but in real time (another bit of modern jargon)

Through the round of many births I roamed
without reward,
without rest,
seeking the house-builder.
Painful is birth
again & again.

House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving. — DhP 153-4

Yes, but as you know, I don't believe in the soteriology that Buddhist peddles. It's my suspicion that often spiritual terms get mixed with everyday psychological terms. We have an ego because there is an enculturation process, not any metaphysical other trappings. We have an ego because we are born (in the physical sense). We have an ego because we have language. Things like this.

We have an ego because we are born (in the physical sense). — schopenhauer1

I'm sure the Buddhas understand that. Escaping enculturation is the reason Buddhism started as a renunciate movement (one of many in that culture).

I'm sure the Buddhas understand that. Escaping enculturation is the reason Buddhism started as a renunciate movement (one of many in that culture). — Wayfarer

The Middle Path, already shows defeat. Mama and papa.. Buddhist societies go on. Crying at birth won't do no good. It happened.

The Middle Path, already shows defeat — schopenhauer1

I won't take your word for it ;-)

I won't take your word for it ;-) — Wayfarer

And yet, you deny the basic fundamentals of cause and effect. Suffering is caused by being born. It's that simple. No more.

Suffering is caused by being born — schopenhauer1

Painful is birth
again & again. — DhP 153-4