Maybe we can address this first : the idea that the self cannot be a product of evolution?
If so- It might be helpful to define self
Evolution : change over time in biological creatures - eg. at one point wings, brains, eyes, language did not exist, now they do.
Natural selection : process by which elements and whole species dissapear from the gene pool because they die so fast (due to environmental factors) that they cannot produce enough offspring.
What is it that is acting? First there is the self-protective self; then comes the self that wants to solve all the problems caused by self-protection. Is there any other component or entity involved? Is there an actuality outside of this wall we have created?
Sir, we are not talking about muscles, but the self or the me, which you defined as identification in the opening.
Letâs find out. Change implies time and confusion, right? Change implies becoming, process. In nature we see changes happening all the time, and accumulation of natural selection is called evolution.
Psychologically, internally, what can we change? We can only change something that exists in time. It is obvious that without time, there cannot be before and after. For example memories and knowledge exist in time, we see the before (0) and after (1). Memories and conditioning give rise to our sense of self and the center we call me. They are built on time, the past memories stored and accumulated in the brain.
And when we act âin the presentâ it is always based on that past, which is why our action is always limited, fragmented and divisive. I wonder if we see this, that as long as our actions are based on time, it is giving rise to a conflict. When we are thinking in time, we have self-contradiction, conflict between what is and the image I have created about the past.
Hence, I said that, if we finish our inquiry here, it means that me / my mind / my consciousness is inherently violent, and we cannot change it.
So is this what we are saying? Do you approach the question differently? Or do we want to inquire further?
Forsooth & thank you good fellow - I am trying to address your question about the self. Which seems to be that although the brain, because it is a physical object, can be considered to be as it is due to the processes of natural selection - the self, because it is a non-physical process cannot.
Is this what you are saying? have I understood your question correctly?
Thinking this was your question, I tried to suggest we look at a less controversial/loaded aspect of the human body (muscles) and its function (strength) to see if we could see more clearly what the question entailed.
Iâll do it again here : the guts and stomach are the way they are thanks to mutation & natural selection, what about digestion? Is digestion due to natural selection? Or seeing as the process of fermentation and decomposition existed prior to the human body, maybe something far more mysterious is going on?
Can we clear this up before going on to the theme of : change = violence?
nb - thoughts and feelings are a function of the brain - on what criteria (other than function) is natural selection selecting for? (oups! you could reply fitness here, but I meant that the usefuleness of the thing is in its function : eyes are selected on how they see, brains on how they think)
Then you are not seeing the world; you are seeing only yourself. We have explored all the reasons why and we have explained it quite thoroughly, considering a range of psychological details and nuances. Has anything changed? Probably the self is incapable of change - thatâs one of the nuances. So has anything else changed?
Is there any relation between pride and fear? Is fear an emotion?
Wrong! The important point that you are trying to make (I hope/I think) is not that Change = Violence, but rather that Desire for change = Violence. ie. Non-acceptance of what is, is conflict. Desire for what âshould beâ, is confusion.
The change from acorn to oak over time is not violence.
Same thing - Same movement of fear. Is there anything else acting upon this desire for progress and security? No one seems to have identified anything thus far - here in this thread anyway.
Why do you ask? Can you expand a little on your thoughts here - that might help?
I feel that there is some sort of connection between desire for social esteem, pride, prejudice, failure and fear. I do not know clearly what is what, but I am feeling they are interconnected. I think, it requires some sort of enquiry.
The enquiry into Evolutionary psychology is already well under way (in academia I mean).
We (science) know that our social position within the group has a great impact on our survival - maybe less so now in rich, educated, industrialised, societies with welfare protection - but our ability to have lots of likes and the least haters possible has always been an important survival skill
The self cannot be changed, but we can become better selves (more alluring, less of a jerk, a better member of society)
People have studied on these aspects, I agree on what you said. Now the question is that, are we different from all of that? Are we aware of those sort of things in ourselves? How these things effect the trajectory of life?
Please elaborate. In what way is the self unchangeable? If it is unchangeable, how can it become better?
I will always be nothing more than a survival mechanism based on fear (and desire, which is the same thing : fear of danger is a synonym for desire for security, comfort, progress) - is this at least seen at an intellectual level?
However, if I am acting in a fashion detrimental to my own wellbeing (due to trauma, inability to adapt etc) maybe it is possible to do some work on the self : psychoanalysis, attitude workshops, prayer, drugs etc?
Self as epiphenomenon of desire and fear ⌠works for me.
So the way the self manifests changes, but the source of self = desire/fear doesnât?
Is it possible for the self to be a mirror for itself? Can I, with all my knowledge, see without judgement?
Or does insight only come when the self loses its power? (or does the self only lose its power via insight?)
What is the power of the self? Is it the manipulation of time? Either I bring in the past or I bring in the future. There is nothing else I can do. Bringing in either of these two elements - the past as memory or the future as idea - must bring fear in their wake because then I am dealing with something that is not immediately and directly actual. Then I am also become a thing of time, which means constant insecurity. It is my own action causing this. Yet insight is not and cannot ever be the result of my own actions.
There is a logic to all this which has nothing to do with the logic of the self.
All hail the Timemaster! Keeper of the sacred twins : memory & hope.
But also Knower of all things! Space & Time being only a part of the dominion in my mindâs eye! Behold the multitude of things beyond number with which I have filled the endless void!
By a mere twitch of the cerebrum, all is known & named.
Tremble before the supreme Judge! The I that gives the ultimate sentence of Good & Bad - without which mere existence has no meaning.
Bow down, fools, before your God and Ruler and Judge.
What happens if one makes a joke upon him/her self in daily life? (It may sound ridiculous question)
Thatâs a very difficult thing to do, isnât it? One cannot tickle oneself because the essence of any joke is the element of surprise. Is there a way out of fear so total and complete that one never goes back into it? On examination, our original question about whether the self is anything but fear turns out to have been a rhetorical question. One cannot escape from fear rhetorically, just as one cannot make oneself laugh with genuine sense of abandonment and joy. There has to be a surprise element.