|
|
|
LECTURE III |
INTRODUCTION
THE 'SELF' |
|
|
"Many
philosophers and, particularly, religious thinkers have sought
to understand the nature of the individual, that 'self' or 'I,'
which maintains its continuity across time."
His Holiness the Dalai Lama (2000)
⌂
NORBU - FREE TIBET
|
|
Since time immemorial, two questions have occupied a prominent sphere within the
pantheon of human thought. The first of these is the question of 'death', and what
becomes of an individual beyond this moment. The second is the question of 'life', and
of the fundamental nature of this seemingly intangible quality.
In this lecture, we shall explore the latter of these questions, and the influence it has
exerted upon the intellectual evolution from which our contemporary scientific
inquiries into the structure and function of the human brain descend. That being said,
let us begin by posing this question in, perhaps, more familiar terms:
What is the 'self'?
|
|
There is an old proverb which reads:
'no man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same
river and he is not the same man.' Taken literally, this
proverb alludes to the seemingly perpetual flow of water through
these channels, and the observation that because this water is
always in motion, the river is constantly changing.
Thus, one is never able to step into the same river twice.
Taken figuratively, however, this proverb describes all of
the physical bodies and systems which man encounters throughout his
lifetime; as all physical systems exist in a state of perpetual
change - even though these changes may not always occur at a rate perceptible to his
senses.
It is a reality, unimpressed by
mundane circumstances, that the human body undergoes considerable
change throughout the course of its lifetime. Yet, despite the
extent to which our physical appearance may reflect this reality; we
somehow retain an instinctive awareness that some intangible
aspect of our existence maintains its continuity unaffected.
Implied in this awareness, is an interesting duality - if our body
is subjected to the frailties of its form, why do we appear so
convinced that this 'intangible aspect of our existence' is not?
|
|
Figure I:1.1 - A stream
running thru Custer State Park in the Black Hills of South Dakota
(United States).
Photograph by Priyan Weerappuli
|
As it happens, this duality has
engaged our collective curiosity for centuries, and in our search
for understanding the nature of the 'intangible aspect of our
existence', or, as some have referred to it, the self; lies
the cornerstone upon which the edifice of our contemporary
understanding regarding the human brain has been built. In the
interest of verifiability, if we restrict our discussion of this
search within the bounds of recorded history; we would find that our
intellectual forbearers approached this 'intangible aspect' from
three primary ideological perspectives. |
|
An overview of the 'self'
|
|
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE 'SELF'
|
|
|
|
The first, as far as recorded history permits us to know, descends from
the people of Ancient Egypt; for whom, the 'self' consisted of nine
parts (each capable of its own unique existence). British
Egyptologist Sir Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge (1857-1934), in his
1911 text Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, prior to
describing these parts (referred to as the Khat,
Ka, Ba, Akh, Khaibit, Sekhem, Ab,
and Ren), however, cautioned that regardless of how “closely we may examine the texts, we still find there
are many points about which they give no information at all, and the
confusion and contradictions which meet us in many documents prove that
the writers of them were as much puzzled when they tried to harmonize
their statements as we are.”
The second descends from the
Ancient Greek philosophers; and among these, Greek philosopher Plato (c.
427-347 BC) - who, in his 360 BC text Phaedrus, proposed
that the 'self' was a single entity - which he likened to a charioteer and his two horses.
According to Plato; the 'self' (which he referred to as the soul)
of all mortal beings, was under the influences of two morally opposed
forces (one good, and one evil), and it was the conflict
between these influences that rendered man
mortal, and thereby inferior to the immortal gods:
|
“About its form we must say the following: that what kind of
thing it is
belongs to a completely and utterly superhuman exposition, and a
long one; to say what it resembles requires a lesser one, one
within human capacities. So let us speak in the latter way.
Let it then resemble the combined power of a winged team of horses
and their charioteer. Now in the case of gods, horses and
charioteers are both good themselves and of good stock; whereas in
the case of the rest, there is a mixture. In the first place,
our driver has charge of a pair; secondly, one of them he finds
noble and good, and of similar stock, while the other is of the
opposite stock, and opposite in its nature; so that the driving in
our case is necessarily difficult and troublesome.
How it is, then, that some living creatures are mortal and some are
immortal, we must now try to say. All soul has the care of all
that is soulless, and ranges about the whole universe, coming to be
now in one form, now in another. Now when it is perfectly
winged, it travels about the earth and governs the whole cosmos; but
the soul that has lost its wings is swept along until it lays hold
of something solid, where it settles down, taking on an earthly body
that seems to move itself because of the power of the soul, and the
whole is called a living creature, soul and body fixed together, and
acquires the name 'mortal'.”
|
The third descends
from Śākyan Prince Siddhārtha Gautama (c. 563-483 BC); who, around 533 BC,
proposed that the 'self' was not an entity, but rather, a momentary
consciousness. Gautama described this theory of the 'self' (which is, occasionally, referred to as the
theory of dependant-origination) in his Maha-Nidana Sutta
(translated: The Great Causes Discourse) - it is presented
here as it has been translated by British historian Maurice O'Connell
Walshe (1911-1998):
|
“If, Ananda, you are asked: 'Has aging-and-death a condition for its
existence?' you should answer: 'Yes.' If asked: 'What
conditions aging-and-death?' you should answer 'Aging-and-death is
conditioned by birth. What conditions birth?' ... 'Becoming
conditions birth. Clinging conditions becoming.' ... 'Craving
conditions clinging.' ... 'Feeling conditions craving.' ... 'Contact
conditions feeling.' ... 'Mind-and-body conditions contact.' ...
'Consciousness conditions mind-and-body.' ... If asked: 'Has
consciousness a condition for its existence?' you should answer:
'Mind-and-body conditions consciousness.'
Thus, Ananda, mind-and-body conditions consciousness and consciousness conditions mind-and-body.”
|
If, at this point, we pause to consider
that these theories were all formulated based on the mundane
observations of their architects; it becomes necessary that we conclude
any
individual, living at any time, could have arrived at these
theories on their own. It follows, similarly then, that any number
of theories could conceivably have been propounded by individuals
throughout history. Based on this consideration, the question may
be asked - why restrict our discussion to only these three?
In addressing this question; it is
important we begin by noting that we have not restricted our discussion
to simply three theories. Rather, our motivation for introducing
only these particular theories lies in that all of the theories
that have been documented throughout the course of written history, may
be classified into three groups based upon their fundamental assumption
regarding the 'self'. The three we have discussed herein,
represent the earliest in each group. These groups, if
defined solely upon their fundamental conception of the 'self', may be
listed as follows:
-
The 'self' is composed of multiple
entities
-
The 'self' is composed of a single
entity
-
The 'self' is devoid of form
|
|
A discussion of how our
intellectual forbearers have perceived the 'self'
|
|
UNDERSTANDING THE 'SELF'
|
|
|
|
This, however, brings us to an impasse.
For if we continue along our present course, we would soon be compelled
to ask which, of the ideas enumerated here, possesses the greater
merit; and in doing so, would be forcing ourselves to answer the
ultimate question concerning our existence - what am 'I'?
Furthermore, we would be forcing ourselves to do so with the prior
knowledge that due to the nature of this question, and the limits
naturally imposed upon our ability to understand our own existence;
no answer we provide may be confirmed, or denied, unless done so upon a
degree of faith.
Such knowledge, however, has done little
to discourage us, or our forbearers, from asking this question. So
little, in fact, that nearly every aspect of human life is somehow
influenced by our personal, or societal, conception of what the
'self' is.
In many societies,
for example, human beings are conditioned to judge their actions (and
those of their peers) based on codes of conduct referred to as morals.
American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), in his 1870 text
Society and Solitude, even went so far as to propose that “civilization
depends on morality.” Yet, the concept of morality, in itself, is
one which rests upon the assumption that the 'self' is an entity;
for how can a 'self' that is without form, be judged by its
actions?
Historically, those who arrived at this
impasse by their own efforts, found themselves faced with a decision -
either attempt to answer this question based on inference; or
accept that the answer to this question was beyond man's ability to
comprehend. From these two alternatives, emerged three
schools of thought.
Those who chose the former (as the
individuals discussed above); developed elaborate theories regarding the
nature of the 'self' that we may now classify into one, or more, of the
three aforementioned categories. While many of these theories have
gone the way of their architects, several have survived the passage of
time, and now serve (with slight modification) as the philosophical
foundations of many of the world's religions. Such
individuals are, perhaps appropriately, referred to in academic terms as
philosophers.
Those who chose the latter - and in doing
so, accepted the limits of man's understanding; placed their
credence in their faith; and their faith, ultimately, in the theories of
these philosophers. It is for this
reason that such individuals are referred to, within an academic
context, as the pious - derived from the Latin word pius,
meaning devout.
From within, and between, these groups of
individuals, however, emerged a third school of thought.
These individuals differed from their
pure-minded counterparts in that they, rather than attempting to
answer
this question, or accepting that it was beyond their comprehension;
focused simply upon understanding this question based upon
observation. The greatest distinction between these individuals
and their pure-minded counterparts, however, lies in that these
individuals abstained from addressing questions concerning the
beginning
and end of the 'self' - in other words, questions regarding how
the 'self' came to be, and of what became of the 'self' after death.
These individuals are referred to, in academic terms, as scientists.
 |
Figure I:1.2 - Venn diagram
depicting the relationship between these three groups of individuals
based on their approach to understanding the nature of the 'self'.
|
Having now described these three schools
of thought; it is important we note, despite the mutually exclusive
appearance of their individual approaches, that they are not so far
removed from one another. It is, in fact, common for an
individual to transition, intellectually, between all three of these
groups within the course of their lifetime. Thus, while these
terms may appear to refer to different groups of people within the context of these lectures,
they do not; and are employed in this apparent capacity purely as a matter of convenience - in reality,
few individuals may boast having enjoyed such a simple existence as to
have never questioned the nature of themselves and their world (whether
as they see it, or as they have been told it is).
With respect to our present discussion;
it is the scientists, in the years following Gautama, Plato and
the people of Ancient Egypt; who would accumulate the body of
information that now serves as the foundation of our contemporary
understanding of the human brain, and so it is to them that our
discussion shall turn. Their search
- which would yield this information; began with a simple observation,
and a deceivingly simple question:
Regardless of what form
the 'self' possessed, it had to interact with the physical body
in some manner.
What was the nature of this interaction
between the 'body' and 'self'?
|
|
Admitting the limits of our
ability to comprehend what the 'self' is |
|
|
|
