Snowball Paper
It’s nearly impossible for me to write this paper because I feel like I have nothing to say about the self. “Knowing thyself” isn’t prioritized on my “to-do” list and after weeks and weeks of procrastination and pacing back and forth between thoughts I can’t put my thumb on it. Instead of knowing thyself, I find myself becoming frustrated with the idea of the self. Anybody who claims that they know the self shouldn’t be recognized for being wise or understanding but instead should be recognized as being a liar to them. Even in my speech I say “the self”. What is “the”? Its impossible for us put our thumb on the same “self” let alone have a discussion about it. There is no such thing as a defined self, but the human being creates this mental representation of the self to become more in touch with the world.
From our class is get the idea that if we don’t leave the class everyday with a complete understanding of who we are, we are less wise than those who know who they are. But the way I see it is that we are indeed wiser than those who say they know the self. Because I personally feel that the people who are truly wise do not whole heartily jump to conclusions and believe everything one person might say about the self. I see class being divided into 3 different groups people, those who “know thyself”, those who do not, and those who can care less. I believe those who do not know about the self and do not care enough to find it is wiser because they are taking their time learn. Finding the self isn’t something that can be concluded over the course of three months of in class arguments and assignments that I can’t whole heartily complete because I don’t feel an attachment to what it is asking me to do. I compare myself to me when I thought I knew who I was and I can’t believe that that was who I was back then.
Knowing thyself is, not knowing at all. That was who I was back then. Before this whole “know thyself” business ever emerged. Back then I was convinced that I had found who I was. How is that possible? This related to Rousseau’s idea that infants and children not already brought to their knees by the world’s seductive corruption is as pure as a human being can get. Why? They are foreign to the world. Compared to us who are given these tools in our search for the self, I believe that we will never truly discover who or what the self really is, aside from convincing ourselves that we really are who we are. Can we truly find the self with the nicely wrapped tools given to us?
Linguistics is the verbal representations of every individual. It’s the core essence of who are in terms of how we communicate, almost like a birthright like our names. The way “I” is used in the English language proves that society has an influence over how we define individualism till the point where we have to acknowledge it in our speech. In a way, the way we refer to the self linguistically is almost like we them as living and breathing individual entities. We as people argue over what individualism and the self is. However through our means of communication we still acknowledge the orthodox English linguistic definition of the self, simply by specifically using phrases “Me” and “I” in our speech and writing.
Like I said before, linguistics is the verbal form of basic human expression, not yet abstract articulate human expression. Through verbal communication, we reiterate our feelings and desires in the world. Phrases such as “I am happy” and “I want it to be sunny today” are merely thin representations of what we truly want. Perhaps deep inside what we really feel or desire isn’t describable by words so the translations from mind to speech is crude. Personally, if I were to say, “I am happy right now” there would have to be a number of factors that provoke that “happiness” within in. It might not even be happiness, but it’s a childhood feeling that has been classified in our minds and often turned to for reference. The factors that might come in play would be the bright sky, or the color of a car, or even something like a soda or something. There are so many more factors that can provoke my specific kind of happiness but we usually just represent that out loud as “I am happy right now.” This is similar to what R. D. Laing dictates in his 1967 essay, “The Politics of Experience”.
“Our capacity to think, except in the service of what we are dangerously deluded in supposing is our self-interest, and in conformity with common sense, is pitifully limited: our capacity even to see, hear, touch, taste and smell is so shrouded in veils of mystification that an intensive discipline of un-learning is necessary for anyone before one can begin to experience the world afresh, with innocence, truth and love.”
Laing explains that our minds often confuse rational thinking with common sense. That are delusional because of this because we then think that common sense and thinking on the surface is self interest; That we are thinking deeply where as we’re not at all. This is true. At times I can find myself thinking very marginally to myself. We all have this idea that the voice that exists within our minds is this sacred wise and mystic side of ourselves. We end up convincing ourselves that this “divine” voice is absolute and is the representation of the wisdom that exists within our minds. Laing says this is merely us lying to ourselves, convincing ourselves that we are smart individuals where as we’re really not. He then explains that our five senses, sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell shouldn’t be the basis of your rational thinking and that they’re merely rational human functions that need to be broken down in order to redo the act of living life.
If what Laing says is true then what we say every day and how we dictate how our mind works is completely false. This is because we confuse our feelings with our senses and we often let our senses determine what our minds think. Laing says that these senses are corrupted by the world in order function within its margins. With the senses we have now, they are so dulled and overworked that we no long sense life for what it is. If our speech is dictated by these corrupted senses then the feelings we describe are not really feelings at all. They’re more likely paired up with childhood memories. Even with memories, the self could not be substantiated upon childhood memories and references. Because of this, our speech no longer truly comes from deep within.
Personally I believe that any kind of a debate over the forms and functions of “the” self is pointless. From observing class discussions, I find that we never really come to a conclusion from our discussion. I understand that not all discussions always need to end up at a solution but having talked to my peers personally, people are frustrated with their search for the self. This class for me has chewed up what I initially believed was who I am. Even though there isn’t a grade acting as an overseer to our success in the classroom, being smothered and suffocated by papers and assignments that forcefully pry themselves into my ideals has caused me to become selfless. Isn’t the self a lie in the first place? If the self can be referred to in the context of “it”, then it is made into a physical representation of some sort. People like myself refer to the self as this alternate image of us. Whether we live day to day, we still have this faint idea of who we are.
Mentally ill people are perhaps the only people on this earth who are the closest to discovering the self, whether it is their own individual or an idea shared by all. The reason this is true is because mentally ill people are detached from the world and its ideals. If one was mentally ill since birth they are exempt from the world’s teachings ever since its entrance into the world. As opposed to one who became mentally ill in the middle of their life, they had already been physically influenced by society and even if their mind no long functions, it used to act as an embodiment of society’s ideals. But we cannot say this is true for all mentally ill people because it totally depends on their condition. One might still be able to function, as society might want it to. I am talking about those who live in a complex world they created for themselves mentally, detached from worldly ideas. However I am not saying that whatever they experience is completely true and is definitely the self but it is a more defined version of what a majority of people who claim they know themselves experience. Mentally ill people also have created these embodiments of what they believe the self is. They whole heartily believe what they make up because they don’t know any better, according to society.
“Rather than being triumphant because of the huge emphasis it now enjoys, the self is at risk. Selfhood is now seemed to be in a state of perpetual crisis in the modern west. Alienated intellectuals and suicidal youth; culture wars and volatile markets; endless addictions to food, work, alcohol and narcotics sexual inadequacy and thrill killers - all feed into education and entertainment industries that keep the intensity of our selfhood perpetually on the boil, nagging and unsettling, but also inspiring and thrilling us with mystery, fear and pleasure.” (Mansfield 2)
The reason normal people like ourselves debate over what the self might be is because we find it hard to believe that the self can be so easily put into words, sentences, and discussions. This is what I believe. Also because I find it hard to believe that my “self”, the self that had been through so many changes and forms, can be defined the words of someone who doesn’t know who I am. But there are people who try to get in touch with the self through the means of meditation and other activities that put selfhood at the forefront of worldly ideals. Mansfield explains that we as human beings are drowning in a world of corruptors such as alcohol, drugs, and basically materialistic substitutes that sooth the gap between the self and us. But many don’t realize that by indulging in these “soothing agents” we are pushing the self away, the very thing we strive to get in touch with. Its gets to the point where it is just so far away and our minds have become so intertwined with the functions of these agents and so dependent upon them that we mistaken them for the self. Mansfield puts the blame upon society because he believes that society being the guiding light in the contemporary world; leave these people out in open for these agents to prey on. And on top of all that, they convince these people that’s its okay to become victimized by false embodiments of the self.
Suicidal youth are somewhat like the mentally ill people I describe earlier on, but they both have their differences. A mentally ill person yields neither to other people or worldly ideals except for his own. As opposed to suicidal youth who once had been so emerged and drowned in societies offerings that they realize the gap between them and the “divine” self had grown larger ever since they abandoned all hope. Then to make that gap larger they falsely embody the self as death and suicide to them was the only means to that.
From our class is get the idea that if we don’t leave the class everyday with a complete understanding of who we are, we are less wise than those who know who they are. But the way I see it is that we are indeed wiser than those who say they know the self. Because I personally feel that the people who are truly wise do not whole heartily jump to conclusions and believe everything one person might say about the self. I see class being divided into 3 different groups people, those who “know thyself”, those who do not, and those who can care less. I believe those who do not know about the self and do not care enough to find it is wiser because they are taking their time learn. Finding the self isn’t something that can be concluded over the course of three months of in class arguments and assignments that I can’t whole heartily complete because I don’t feel an attachment to what it is asking me to do. I compare myself to me when I thought I knew who I was and I can’t believe that that was who I was back then.
Knowing thyself is, not knowing at all. That was who I was back then. Before this whole “know thyself” business ever emerged. Back then I was convinced that I had found who I was. How is that possible? This related to Rousseau’s idea that infants and children not already brought to their knees by the world’s seductive corruption is as pure as a human being can get. Why? They are foreign to the world. Compared to us who are given these tools in our search for the self, I believe that we will never truly discover who or what the self really is, aside from convincing ourselves that we really are who we are. Can we truly find the self with the nicely wrapped tools given to us?
Linguistics is the verbal representations of every individual. It’s the core essence of who are in terms of how we communicate, almost like a birthright like our names. The way “I” is used in the English language proves that society has an influence over how we define individualism till the point where we have to acknowledge it in our speech. In a way, the way we refer to the self linguistically is almost like we them as living and breathing individual entities. We as people argue over what individualism and the self is. However through our means of communication we still acknowledge the orthodox English linguistic definition of the self, simply by specifically using phrases “Me” and “I” in our speech and writing.
Like I said before, linguistics is the verbal form of basic human expression, not yet abstract articulate human expression. Through verbal communication, we reiterate our feelings and desires in the world. Phrases such as “I am happy” and “I want it to be sunny today” are merely thin representations of what we truly want. Perhaps deep inside what we really feel or desire isn’t describable by words so the translations from mind to speech is crude. Personally, if I were to say, “I am happy right now” there would have to be a number of factors that provoke that “happiness” within in. It might not even be happiness, but it’s a childhood feeling that has been classified in our minds and often turned to for reference. The factors that might come in play would be the bright sky, or the color of a car, or even something like a soda or something. There are so many more factors that can provoke my specific kind of happiness but we usually just represent that out loud as “I am happy right now.” This is similar to what R. D. Laing dictates in his 1967 essay, “The Politics of Experience”.
“Our capacity to think, except in the service of what we are dangerously deluded in supposing is our self-interest, and in conformity with common sense, is pitifully limited: our capacity even to see, hear, touch, taste and smell is so shrouded in veils of mystification that an intensive discipline of un-learning is necessary for anyone before one can begin to experience the world afresh, with innocence, truth and love.”
Laing explains that our minds often confuse rational thinking with common sense. That are delusional because of this because we then think that common sense and thinking on the surface is self interest; That we are thinking deeply where as we’re not at all. This is true. At times I can find myself thinking very marginally to myself. We all have this idea that the voice that exists within our minds is this sacred wise and mystic side of ourselves. We end up convincing ourselves that this “divine” voice is absolute and is the representation of the wisdom that exists within our minds. Laing says this is merely us lying to ourselves, convincing ourselves that we are smart individuals where as we’re really not. He then explains that our five senses, sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell shouldn’t be the basis of your rational thinking and that they’re merely rational human functions that need to be broken down in order to redo the act of living life.
If what Laing says is true then what we say every day and how we dictate how our mind works is completely false. This is because we confuse our feelings with our senses and we often let our senses determine what our minds think. Laing says that these senses are corrupted by the world in order function within its margins. With the senses we have now, they are so dulled and overworked that we no long sense life for what it is. If our speech is dictated by these corrupted senses then the feelings we describe are not really feelings at all. They’re more likely paired up with childhood memories. Even with memories, the self could not be substantiated upon childhood memories and references. Because of this, our speech no longer truly comes from deep within.
Personally I believe that any kind of a debate over the forms and functions of “the” self is pointless. From observing class discussions, I find that we never really come to a conclusion from our discussion. I understand that not all discussions always need to end up at a solution but having talked to my peers personally, people are frustrated with their search for the self. This class for me has chewed up what I initially believed was who I am. Even though there isn’t a grade acting as an overseer to our success in the classroom, being smothered and suffocated by papers and assignments that forcefully pry themselves into my ideals has caused me to become selfless. Isn’t the self a lie in the first place? If the self can be referred to in the context of “it”, then it is made into a physical representation of some sort. People like myself refer to the self as this alternate image of us. Whether we live day to day, we still have this faint idea of who we are.
Mentally ill people are perhaps the only people on this earth who are the closest to discovering the self, whether it is their own individual or an idea shared by all. The reason this is true is because mentally ill people are detached from the world and its ideals. If one was mentally ill since birth they are exempt from the world’s teachings ever since its entrance into the world. As opposed to one who became mentally ill in the middle of their life, they had already been physically influenced by society and even if their mind no long functions, it used to act as an embodiment of society’s ideals. But we cannot say this is true for all mentally ill people because it totally depends on their condition. One might still be able to function, as society might want it to. I am talking about those who live in a complex world they created for themselves mentally, detached from worldly ideas. However I am not saying that whatever they experience is completely true and is definitely the self but it is a more defined version of what a majority of people who claim they know themselves experience. Mentally ill people also have created these embodiments of what they believe the self is. They whole heartily believe what they make up because they don’t know any better, according to society.
“Rather than being triumphant because of the huge emphasis it now enjoys, the self is at risk. Selfhood is now seemed to be in a state of perpetual crisis in the modern west. Alienated intellectuals and suicidal youth; culture wars and volatile markets; endless addictions to food, work, alcohol and narcotics sexual inadequacy and thrill killers - all feed into education and entertainment industries that keep the intensity of our selfhood perpetually on the boil, nagging and unsettling, but also inspiring and thrilling us with mystery, fear and pleasure.” (Mansfield 2)
The reason normal people like ourselves debate over what the self might be is because we find it hard to believe that the self can be so easily put into words, sentences, and discussions. This is what I believe. Also because I find it hard to believe that my “self”, the self that had been through so many changes and forms, can be defined the words of someone who doesn’t know who I am. But there are people who try to get in touch with the self through the means of meditation and other activities that put selfhood at the forefront of worldly ideals. Mansfield explains that we as human beings are drowning in a world of corruptors such as alcohol, drugs, and basically materialistic substitutes that sooth the gap between the self and us. But many don’t realize that by indulging in these “soothing agents” we are pushing the self away, the very thing we strive to get in touch with. Its gets to the point where it is just so far away and our minds have become so intertwined with the functions of these agents and so dependent upon them that we mistaken them for the self. Mansfield puts the blame upon society because he believes that society being the guiding light in the contemporary world; leave these people out in open for these agents to prey on. And on top of all that, they convince these people that’s its okay to become victimized by false embodiments of the self.
Suicidal youth are somewhat like the mentally ill people I describe earlier on, but they both have their differences. A mentally ill person yields neither to other people or worldly ideals except for his own. As opposed to suicidal youth who once had been so emerged and drowned in societies offerings that they realize the gap between them and the “divine” self had grown larger ever since they abandoned all hope. Then to make that gap larger they falsely embody the self as death and suicide to them was the only means to that.