There may be a kind of self

... but not the one we think of.

In a conversation with Robert Wright  and Stephen Asma  the latter speaks about research of the brain in animals that has shown that there be an early part of the brain that can be seen as a permanent self. Both for humans and animals, and anyway as long as we stay alive.

The thoughts and the stories we tell about our selves are not a self, for instance because of our tendency to deceive our selves.

So we have much in common with other animals and maybe even with plants. A core-self that not has anything to do with personality or language - but probably with feelings and cravings.
So we cannot get rid of the cravings with thought, but we can handle them...
Maybe not always with sitting  meditation,  exercise or drawing may sometimes be better.....

But as a lay Buddhist Asma can drink some whiskey in the evening if he's not attached to it...
As the craving never will go away why not respect them a little... 

 Here's the conversation (about the self after about 32 minutes);



So lets say that the fundamental modules that evolutionary psychology names ( the four f:s); fight, flee, feed and fxxx has its roots in that core part of the brain. In that case we can never get rid of them, just get some space around the feelings....

Another tendency that  we have is focus on problems and not on the good things.

That have probably made us very successful as a specie. And it was probably necessary at the stone age and earlier on.

Nowadays it seems that we have had too much success, as we totally dominate the planet.

So the modules in our brain may fool us in the long run; too many people on the planet and too much destruction of the environment.

We better start to meditate or paint.... without being attached to it,

Watercolors by  the Swedish painter Lars Lerin;










 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more