PDA

View Full Version : The concept of self and nothingness.



was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 06:09 AM
Often times when we think of ourselves we think of the guy that we see in the mirror. Or we think of "the body" as the self. Yet, the body is only one aspect of the self and not the real "you". One might think of the mind as "the self" but just like the body it is only a part of the self and not the real "you". To take it a bit further some my insist that their soul is the "real self" but there again just like the body and the mind it is a part of but not the core of the self. So now the concept of self hood has become difficult to define. If you try to think about it while reading this, then you have tapped into the self without knowing it. In order to read and comprehend or to think and react one needs to tap into the "will", that which is not defined by body, soul, or mind.

To understand this further...we can look at the Hebrew word for "I" which is "ani" when one re-arranges the letters a bit...it spells the Hebrew "ayn" or "ayin" which means "Nothingness".

It doesn't mean the real you is nothing. What it means is the real you can't be consciously categorized. To take body, mind, and soul away and still have a spark of something that is the real you. The nothingness that "wills" yourself to act do and think, is beyond the human imagination. Where did this concept come from?

One can take a quick look at Genesis 1:26. From the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh/Bible.

Gen 1:26-28 " And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth." 27: And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him male and female He created them. 28:God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on the earth."

Now reading this from the Western literal perspective it isn't to hard to understand. Yet, we can find out out what this "self" is....or this defined "will" which we can not define we must look a little further.

First off in the first creation story Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3...God's name is Elohim which by definition is usually plural. I will cover the second creation story of Gen. 2:5-2:25 and the intermission verse of 2:4 at another time.

In general term it is normally singular in its Hebrew usage. The story starts of Gen 1:1 as Be-reshith bara Elohim" or mechanically translated as "In the beginning created gods". Yet in the Hebrew grammar when a action like "bara" (created) comes before a plural pronoun like Elohim...often times that plural pronoun becomes a singular possessive of the action. That is how we get "In the beginning God created" in our modern Bibles. So the story starts off with one monotheistic God.

Now when we end up in 1:26 we see this "Let us make man in our image".

Who is this us that Elohim is referring to? Is it the Christian Trinity? Is it God and Jesus? Is it God and the heavenly hosts? Here we see a plurality for the first time Elohim. Ok, now lets make some sense of this. Who was created in the image of God? Man or the Hebrew "ah-adam" meaning mankind. What makes up human kind? From 1:27 "...male and female He created them." So both male and female were created in the image of God, in the context of when Elohim was used in the plural.

Ok but does this mean God has the anthropomorphic attributes of both?!? The answer would be no. As this is not talking about a physical image at all. In fact this is talking about the source for "self". How is it about self and not physical image you may ask? Well...lets look at two key words here. Image, and likeness. In this case "image" is translated from the Hebrew word "zelem" and "likeness" from the Hebrew word "demut". You can get a bit of an idea about these words from Strong's Concordance but often times Strong's leaves out the usage of words in how the are utilized.

Lets start with "zelem" which usually means image as in the perception of a thing. For example it wasn't the physical image of the wood and stone that pagans worshiped it was what the perceived "zelem" that they thought it represented.

In other words "zelem" or the "image" we are created in has more to do with the intellectual and spiritual perception of a human and not so much his physical attributes. We can see this as the Hebrews had better words for physical images like "toar". Also the word for likeness "demut" is often used in the abstract. Meaning our spiritual and intellectual image was made in the abstract spiritual and intellectual nature of God. That both masculinity and the feminine are derived from the same source, and therefore all have the same source for "self" or "will".

In verse 28 you see God commanding man to multiple and dominate the world. Think of this more or less like writing the software before its put into the hardware. This is the advanced consciousness or the undefined "self" of each of us being created as more than just an instinctive animal. In the abstract likeness of the Creator. Since both concepts of male and female were created in this abstract likeness then it does well for this verse to utilize Elohim in the plural...even though it is the same one God still creating.

Now an interesting thing to remember is that after God created light, sky, sea's, land, plants, fish, birds, and animals he looked and said that all of them were good. In the case of human being he did not say that at all? Why is that? Was the creation of the perceived spiritual and intellectual image and likeness not completed? We have an answer the second time God says "us" in reference to the Divine after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:22 "Now the Lord God said, "Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!" (NJPS)

Now we see mankind unlike other creatures. A thinking advanced being that was not declared good or bad initially but after making a conscious decision to do what they were ordered not to do they were declared good and bad. Because that was the path they chose, where the animals act more out of instinct. The mystery of this even can be behind the deception of the serpent at the tree. In Gen 2:5-Gen 2:25 God's name is not Elohim but the "Tetragrammaton" commonly translated as Jehovah.

Yet, when the serpent is tempting Eve he is careful not to say you will be like Jehovah, instead he cleverly tells Eve she and Adam will be like Elohim...because he even knows what image they were created in. The lie that was told was a half truth...he didn't inform her (them) to eat from the Tree of Life in order to save them from death.

That is why God said in Gen 3:22 that "Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad...". It wasn't until we acted on "free will" that we were noted as good or bad, but in this case both.

So the real "self" is the undefined "free will" that is beyond our comprehension and is from the same source. Beyond the grasp of our imagination. Like the energy that is powering your PC. You can see its working but you can't actually look at the chip and see the flow of the energy.

LAGC
03-03-2012, 07:06 AM
Ah yes, the "art" of philosophy. Sometimes I think the guy who said "Philosophy is really nothing more than glorified mental masturbation" was right -- indeed, its fun to indulge oneself in, but rarely leads to anything productive. Questions only lead to more questions and so on, ad infinitum.

Regarding the Mind-Body problem, the biggest problem the Dualists (who say that the mind or "soul" is somehow separate from the brain) have is that we are able to see the direct results that brain damage has on people. When people get brain cancer, or come down with dementia/Alzheimer's, etc. not only do their physical brains deteriorate, but it affects their mind/memory/motor-functions as well. It's pretty hard to say that the mind isn't completely dependent on a functional brain to function properly.

In regards to religion, the question you have to ask is: what happens to victims of brain damage when they die? Do people remain in vegetative states in the supposed after-life? Do victims of dementia/Alzheimer's ever remember who they are? Some religions like the Mormons have tried to get around this problem by claiming that we revert to a "youthful" (young adult) state in the after-life, thus presumably restoring us to our prime when our brains (and thus, minds) were completely healthy.

But it is an interesting mental exercise to ponder indeed.


To understand this further...we can look at the Hebrew word for "I" which is "ani" when one re-arranges the letters a bit...it spells the Hebrew "ayn" or "ayin" which means "Nothingness".

And now we know how Ayn Rand got her name. ;)

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 07:08 AM
Do victims of dementia/Alzheimer's ever remember who they are?

My grandmother like her sisters suffer(s) from one or the other. She may not be able to remember my name or where I live but she can tell you what Jesus said.

LAGC
03-03-2012, 07:14 AM
My grandmother like her sisters suffer(s) from one or the other. She may not be able to remember my name or where I live but she can tell you what Jesus said.

And what happens when she can't even remember that? When she no longer remembers what Jesus said? Does such a person become "un-saved?" What happens to such people in the supposed after-life? Do they somehow get their mental faculties restored? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live as a vegetable for eternity!

Kind of reminds me what happened to my grandmother (who gradually developed full-blown dementia herself, to the point where she could no longer even talk or go to the restroom herself) -- the pastor who my grandfather chose to perform the funeral had the gall to say that "Since she accepted Jesus Christ as her personal savior, she is now in heaven. Be thankful, for had she not, she would now be suffering in hell."

The thing is, my grandmother was never a born-again Christian. If she did get "saved" it must have happened long after she developed dementia, so how does anyone know whether she even understood what it meant? What that pastor was really saying was that my grandmother was most probably in hell. How comforting.

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 07:52 AM
And what happens when she can't even remember that? When she no longer remembers what Jesus said? Does such a person become "un-saved?" What happens to such people in the supposed after-life? Do they somehow get their mental faculties restored? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live as a vegetable for eternity!

I doubt a loving all merciful God is going to condemn someone to hell because as their mind wore away they could not remember things. That is why Jesus said what he taught was spiritual and not of this world like our minds are. How your grandma decided to come to the Lord or when is none of my business. That is between her and God. The point I was making the first post is that even "free will" is above mind, body, and spirit. I never linked body and spirit together as one in the same.

Also you said.
Ah yes, the "art" of philosophy. Sometimes I think the guy who said "Philosophy is really nothing more than glorified mental masturbation"

To that I reply with Aristotle. ""I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."

For the record I am not a dualist.

LAGC
03-03-2012, 08:02 AM
I doubt a loving all merciful God is going to condemn someone to hell because as their mind wore away they could not remember things.

Well, the Old Testament is littered with an angry/jealous God doing far worse (genocide) to people who didn't deserve it. So you have to really hope your God has had a change of heart over the millenia and spares the poor victims of dementia. ;)


The point I was making the first post is that even "free will" is above mind, body, and spirit. I never linked body and spirit together as one in the same.

Well, "free will" is an entirely different pickle in philosophy. Are you aware of any of the developments in the field of neuroscience? Scientists have already found that many of our conscious decisions can be predicted several seconds before we consciously "make" them. In other words, our subconscious drives much of our conscious behavior. Makes you wonder just how "free" our will really is, whether we aren't just products of our biology/environment.

LAGC
03-03-2012, 08:24 AM
"...philosophy is just so much mental masturbation."

To that I reply with Aristotle. ""I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."

Oh, and just to add, have you ever heard the joke:

"What does the employed philosopher say to the unemployed philosopher?"

"Do you want fries and a Coke with that?"

:joker:

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 08:42 AM
Oh, and just to add, have you ever heard the joke:

"What does the employed philosopher say to the unemployed philosopher?"

"Do you want fries and a Coke with that?"

:joker:

Well...I never said anything about making a living as a philosopher. In fact my original post was really about theology, and not really philosophy. Maybe some philosophical elements in the beginning...but in context it dealt with theology, the definition of "self" from a Biblical point of view. Nowhere did I mention or imply that philosophy should be a career choice, or that we should argue the merits of philosophy.

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 08:44 AM
Well, the Old Testament is littered with an angry/jealous God doing far worse (genocide) to people who didn't deserve it. So you have to really hope your God has had a change of heart over the millenia and spares the poor victims of dementia. ;)

Usually when I hear this argument it normally comes from people who read the Bible way to literally, and do not understand the social and economic history of the Ancient Near East.

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 08:46 AM
Well, "free will" is an entirely different pickle in philosophy. Are you aware of any of the developments in the field of neuroscience? Scientists have already found that many of our conscious decisions can be predicted several seconds before we consciously "make" them. In other words, our subconscious drives much of our conscious behavior. Makes you wonder just how "free" our will really is, whether we aren't just products of our biology/environment.

But they still can't understand were consciousness and sub-consciousness comes from? Well if your into Super String theory who might have some theoretical answers. In fact they are still confused on the neurology on speaking in tongues.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video?id=5356933

N/A
03-03-2012, 09:25 AM
Oh, and just to add, have you ever heard the joke:

"What does the employed philosopher say to the unemployed philosopher?"

"Do you want fries and a Coke with that?"

:joker:

Or, "Would you like a room with one bed or two? Check out time is 11:00 nm."

LAGC
03-03-2012, 09:32 AM
Well...I never said anything about making a living as a philosopher. In fact my original post was really about theology, and not really philosophy. Maybe some philosophical elements in the beginning...but in context it dealt with theology, the definition of "self" from a Biblical point of view. Nowhere did I mention or imply that philosophy should be a career choice, or that we should argue the merits of philosophy.

Well, theology is really nothing more than applied philosophy. So what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. :)

LAGC
03-03-2012, 09:34 AM
But they still can't understand were consciousness and sub-consciousness comes from? Well if your into Super String theory who might have some theoretical answers. In fact they are still confused on the neurology on speaking in tongues.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video?id=5356933

Agreed, there is still much we don't know about the human brain. But we are learning, and fast.

The next 10 years are going to be amazing in science. It's going to change our world forever.

Far more useful knowledge will be gained from the pursuit of science than it will from the pursuit of philosophy, if I may be so bold to suggest. :)

was_peacemaker
03-03-2012, 09:59 AM
Agreed, there is still much we don't know about the human brain. But we are learning, and fast.

The next 10 years are going to be amazing in science. It's going to change our world forever.

Far more useful knowledge will be gained from the pursuit of science than it will from the pursuit of philosophy, if I may be so bold to suggest. :)

I have nothing against science and I hope you and anyone else can tell I am not a Biblical literalist. In fact if you read my first post through you will see I am trying to teach the concepts of the advanced status of the human "zelem" or advanced consciousness through the act of Gen 1:26-28. Since I do believe that the domain of humankind is of the direct abstract image of God then I do believe we are obligated as he commanded to dominate the earth. Not just make babies and fill the place up...but to learn and dominate the physical realm in which we live in. Yet, to say science replaces philosophy is kind of jumping the gun. Psychology and Psychiatry have done about as much harm as good. Look at our generation LAGC. Look at the kids who were medicated who group to be pill poppers, look at those folks addicted to text, and cell phones.

I think the only scientific theory right now that has a shot at credible explanations for the source of our consciousness and sub-consciousness might be Super String theory, even then it could not define the origins of each individuals consciousness. Even that...as complex as it is, doesn't explain the origins of any Universe prior to the Big Bang either. What it does try to present is theories for how something like a known principle may exist in something that is universal relationship without seeing, touching or smelling it. Yet, knowing it exists. I never felt like science challenged my faith, but I think it is an obligation of those who have faith in the God of the Bible to fulfill his command to dominate the earth (physical realm).

LAGC
03-03-2012, 03:36 PM
Yet, to say science replaces philosophy is kind of jumping the gun. Psychology and Psychiatry have done about as much harm as good. Look at our generation LAGC. Look at the kids who were medicated who group to be pill poppers, look at those folks addicted to text, and cell phones.

Its true. Scientific knowledge is neither good or bad in and of itself, but it can be used or abused just like any other tool. New scientific discoveries will indeed present new challenges, and the issue of morality/ethics must always be at the forefront of our minds as we continue to adapt to an ever-changing world.


I think the only scientific theory right now that has a shot at credible explanations for the source of our consciousness and sub-consciousness might be Super String theory, even then it could not define the origins of each individuals consciousness. Even that...as complex as it is, doesn't explain the origins of any Universe prior to the Big Bang either. What it does try to present is theories for how something like a known principle may exist in something that is universal relationship without seeing, touching or smelling it. Yet, knowing it exists. I never felt like science challenged my faith, but I think it is an obligation of those who have faith in the God of the Bible to fulfill his command to dominate the earth (physical realm).

Fair enough. As long as most religious folks can tolerate scientists, I think most scientists can tolerate religious folks in turn. (The Richard Dawkinses of the world aside, of course. ;) )