Analysis of the Self: Borderless But Not Boundless

[CONTEXT: This is a prompt from a course I am taking called Buddhism and Modern Psychology…The Buddha makes the claim, which may draw some support from modern psychology, that the self does not exist. Describe the self that the Buddha says does not exist and explain the Buddha's principal argument against it. Do you agree or disagree with the Buddha’s argument that this kind of self doesn’t exist? Or are you unable to take a position? Give two specific reasons for your view, and explain why your reasons support either the existence of the self or the non-existence of the self, or why they explain why you are unable to take a position on the question.]

As I understand it, the Buddha makes a claim regarding the concept of "not self" as distinct from the idea of "no self" which I will discuss later. The "not self" claim emphasizes that the analysis of the five skandhas (or five aggregates) reveals that the self does not appear to be present within them. For instance, from a subjective (or objective) perspective, one is unable to point to a place in the body that contains the self. The self may feel like it exists in the head but where in the head is it? What is the specific point behind your eyes associated with the self, with the essence of you? This question seems to be difficult to answer for our bodies as well as for the other four aggregates: consciousness, feelings, mental formations, and perceptions. The Buddha's claim rests upon the two essential properties that are attributed to the common conception of the self: 1) permanence and 2) control. By contrast, from the Buddha's perspective, the world around us (and within us) is fundamentally characterized by impermanence and lack of control. I tend to agree with this claim and by way of illustration; I will outline both an objective and subjective viewpoint.

Let us first start from an objective claim, once again in the context of the body aggregate. To the point of impermanence…our bodies are not remotely in a state of permanence. Our cells, for instance, die and renew constantly. Some of which only last hours. Some last days, months, or years. After a decade, we replace many (if not most) of the cells in our body. Some cells, of course, do last our entire lifespan such as our neurons but these are the exception, not the rule. I do not imagine many people would claim that their "self" is only comprised of their neurons and nothing else. Even if they did, the neural network is far from unchanging. The neural pathways we engage and the connections between areas of the brain are in a constant state of flux. At all levels, our body is in a state of change: metabolically, physiologically, hormonally, chemically, and so on. Now for the question of control. While many of us feel that we have control of our body much of the time, there are irrefutable examples of a lack of bodily control. Sneezing, yawning, crying, and stomach churning to name a few. When we sleep, we relinquish all conscious control yet our body continues to function autonomously. In addition, none of us truly controls how our body breaks, degrades, and ultimately fails even the healthiest among us. From the objective perspective of the body, there seems to be no space for either permanence or control in any ultimate sense.

From a subjective standpoint, I have explored this claim through my meditation practice. While I have not necessarily had a profound selflessness experience; nonetheless, I have been unable to identify anything I can claim to be the self. For me, the absence of the self is the absence of a center. There is no middle. There is no central point. There is no "there" there. I have looked for the self and found nothing, though I have not necessarily found nothing to be the only thing there.  Here we run into the distinction between "not self" and "no self." I will not go so far as to claim that there is in fact no self but I see the merit in the Buddha's claim of not self. If the self is defined as the totality of experience, of all five aggregates, fair enough. However, if it is in any one of the five aggregates, I have not seen it for myself.

Finally, I would go beyond saying that there is no center and add an additional claim. A claim that there are no borders as it relates to the self. I see no clear distinction between what we identify as our "selves" and the world around us. The objects and people we interact with influence all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. We are unable to take a step unless there is ground for us to step upon. We cannot survive five minutes without the air around us to breath. We hold no political viewpoints unless there is first a political system to view. At every turn the ever-changing world around us both constructs and constrains us in ways in which we have little to no control.

For me, the self is a sort of quality of being. A quality without a center and borderless without being boundless. 

Quantified Self: Lessons in Self-Deception

2017 marked the beginning of my journey with the ideas of quantified self. I went all out trying to figure the ways I could quantify my life. Though I learned many things about the details of the way I spend my time and energy (much of which can be found here), the most important lesson I absorbed was that of self-deception.

Every morning and evening I would record various aspects of my day. I forced myself daily to think about my goals, habits (good and bad), and progress towards improving myself. There were times when it was so tempting to fudge a number or use some selective memory when recounting my day. Nobody would ever know. Even I would likely forget that I hadn’t reported my day accurately. This is, of course, directly in opposition to the whole concept of quantified self which seeks to obtain truth about ourselves through quantifiable measures. Garbage data going in, garbage insights coming out.

I strikes me how even in the context of a project that explicitly seeks accurate information, I was tempted to lie to myself. Unfortunately, I imagine this to be a common (if not universal) feature of the human condition. It seems that most of us probably spend our days lying to ourselves. Sometimes this can be a useful fiction to motivate us to take the next step or push forward through hard times. But I fear that more often than not it is just another example of the way we hide our face from the realities of our lives and the world around us. Its easier to repeat a comfortable lie to ourselves over and over again than to face the truth of who we are. If we can't work up the will to commit to the truth in conversations with ourselves, what makes us think that we will be able to speak truth to friends, loved ones, or the destructive powers of the world?

I am hopeful that this small exercise in daily honesty with myself may have larger implications to the way I interact with those around me. Hopefully, much like a muscle, I will continue to build the strength and resilience to live my life immersed in the expressions of truth.

 

"Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts. Dye it then with a continuous series of such thoughts as these: for instance, that where a man can live, there he can also live well."

-Marcus Aurelius

Experiments in Conversation: Sam, Ben, & Eric

[CONTEXT: Last night I had the privilege of attending a Sam Harris live podcast in San Francisco. He brought on Ben Shapiro and Eric Weinstein for a stimulating conversation. As might be expected, the topic of religion was much debated between Sam and Ben. This is my attempt to dissect some of that discussion.]

When listening to conversations such as these, I try to look at it through a certain lens. That lens is this: how to best restate a viewpoint to enable the interlocutors to converge on a point of agreement. At my peril, I will attempt to do this by clarifying Sam’s viewpoint to Ben.

Ben’s primary disagreement with Sam comes down to the is-ought problem (certainly something Sam has thought long and hard about). Sam attempted several times to relay his “navigation problem” view to Ben with little success. I think what Sam failed to state here (but I seem to recall him clarifying elsewhere) is that there is, at the root of his navigation problem view, a single “ought” that cannot necessarily be reconciled with an “is.” In my own words, that we ought to seek to build a global society which promotes the well-being of conscious creatures rather than steer towards a collective Hell of unending suffering for all beings.

I think there is no escaping the fact that there is an is-ought gap here that cannot be reconciled; however, that single gap allows us to place everything else worth caring about squarely in the “is” category. To put words in Sam’s mouth, “if we can’t agree upon this one ought, then what the hell are we even talking about here?” Intuitively, it seems to be a universally acceptable statement. Further, I would argue that Sam’s distinction between pure conscious bliss for all beings versus abject misery for all beings is essentially a rationalists/materialist definition of Good and Evil. Ultimately a subjective statement (one that can’t bridge the is-ought gap) but a statement that is as deeply rooted in science and reason as possible.

Here’s where I think Sam and Ben largely agree. They both broadly define Good and Evil in the same way. Their disagreement is both semantic and in regards to the source of that Good and Evil. Ben is never going to back pedal from his view that God started this whole moral process rolling. And Sam will never concede that starting the process with revelation is a good thing. This can make for tedious conversation.

In general, I think their conversations could be much more fruitful were the focus on the vectors, not the data points. Their agreement on principles runs very deep. This is more than enough to discuss interesting solutions to problems rather than nuances of epistemology. Additionally, I think Eric’s concept of Truth, Fitness, Meaning, and Grace could serve a useful vectors for such a dialog. My hope is to hear Sam and Ben speak again with a focus more on the trajectory of where we are going rather than getting bogged down in the details of where we have been.