Is the human self nonexistent?

I'm probably a bit all over the place as I don't have a fixed view about these complex matters (to say the least!).

But there's this too. Nbtruthman brought up PMH Atwater's book about children NDEs in another thread, which is something that's been on my mind for a while. Specifically in reference to extremely young children who had NDEs and where the outlook inside the NDE is distinctly adult, and not at all suited, as far as I can see, to a child's developed sense of self at that time.

Here are two examples on page 69. (My edition of the book is the one from 2003 that was renamed The New Children and Near-Death Experiences, publishers Bear & Company in Rochester, Vermont).

Janet had an NDE at age 9 months. And the statement from her that is included (from obviously older!) is "I felt so homesick afterwards. I regretted being in the flesh again, cut off from the Voice of God/Source of Guidance. I oscillated between period of great elation and creativity and deep suicidal depression as a teenager."

And then there's (on the same page) P. Ann who had an NDE at 3 months. "Being sent back into this mess of a family has often felt like a betrayal. Being loved and welcomed briefly on the other side and then returned into a loveless world was sometimes more than I could bear, especially because I could not seem to kill myself and I wanted to."

A few pages before, the author goes into detail about another person, Carroll Gray, who had several NDEs, the first one in the womb, where she could what was going on in the family when it happened, and at 2 and a half told her parents what happened.

PMH writes:


I can't see a different way of understanding this than PMH does. Obviously there's a discontinuity, at some level, between what the consciousness of the "self" in the NDE is having, and what the child's "self" is able to mentalize, or have constructed by that age. It would be hard to think that both are having the same "stream of consciousness" at that precise moment.

So this seems to argue strongly for at least levels of consciousness, and something discontinuous. I don't know if you want to call it the same "self", but there appears to be a distinction between what we could distinguish as the soul and the personality, or something like that.

I don't know how Laird or Titus Rivas' conceptions of the self are able to deal with this data.

Nobody has to try to incorporate or deal with Atwater data because she isn't any kind of authority that anyone needs to take seriously. 
Her fake degrees don't help her case either.
Some sources just can't be taken seriously.

Btw, anyone who suffers with uninvited telepathic communication understands the purpose of "self"...

Intrusions in your functionality, emotions, and thoughts can disrupt your ability to do so many things that require your focus and attention. They also insert things into your daily processes and steer them, enslaving you to driving forces while you have no control. Self is control over your space, your own emotions, your own thoughts, etc.

The individual, self in this case, would become like a leaf being pushed around by the wind if it were not for this personal sphere. 
Without borders, you become a slave to the whims and horrible thoughts and desires of those around you. You blend with other things and animals and become prey for predators very quickly.
There are many reasons why we have the self, and the ego. Try driving a car when you are looking through multiple other eyes.

Do we really exist is a rather silly question to me, since we obviously do, and are discussing this. 
This current self has nothing to do with other time or space relations or dimensions, or whether other parts of the human condition exist here or there. 
If we are not experiencing them in our current condition, with our current ego, they might as well not exist to us.

As long as we interact with each other, dream dimension or not, it becomes real and shared. Wander around thinking the world is not real or self isn't limited, soul is all that matters, and get hit by a truck or eaten by a bear. That experience should make everyone snap back to reality, with suffering and pain, followed by death and likely recycling. The philosophy portion won't change that this type of experience sucks and is undesireable, which is the basics of having a self and self preservation in this time and space.

I don't think we can stand in this vantage point in space and time, with our ego, and even comprehend things with these tools (sensory or brain) that are not designed for comprehending other time and space things. The ego self is locked into this space for a good reasons, mainly protection and function.

I do think we have to use the appropriate 'version' of our total being to examine other aspects of our existence. 
A soul would examine the soul and be able to comprehend and analyze "soul"... 
Soul likely doesn't experience as much of real world ego self as we think, being foreign to the time and space. 
Since, as soon as you step into this time and space, you are then in this frequency and that lowers you to the physical, so it would cross and become what it is trying to observe, losing "soul" quality. 
Where examination and observation might have overlapping or transparent onion skin qualities. These are not clear in that sense, because it is so different, time and space are different, thus dimension is different.

The view from ego self is thus likely limited to ego self. 
Ego self likely has memories and space / time relationships that die off partly or entirely when this body dies. It has to grow back in the next incarnation, and likely in a completely new format, so a fresh ego over and over. A fresh ego that is likely only vaguely or transparently aware of other time and space versions of self, or not at all, becoming completely emerged in the present, and spending all of the energy on maintaining that focus in constant concentration.

Where if memory or experience is passed to other areas of our "total being" from the ego, maybe it survives this physical. Not saying that it survives a possible other death of another version of self. How deep do those Russian dolls go?
I would then imagine that whatever bits and pieces that are passed to any surviving self from the ego might present when the next ego bubble forms, since they belong to this time and space relationship.

It is likely that we are parts of a larger whole, and that we are like actors on a stage or puppets we control. 
It is likely we might have a soul or multiple shells of souls. 
It is likely that we can be living in multiple bodies at the same time. 

Many things are likely.
Not much of any of that can be proven, yet...

We can see the ripples of evidence in the waters of reality, giving us clues.

I couldn't disagree more. That to which I referred as the "pure subjectivity" at the core of selfhood is the true self of any given being, and is in no way a generic self. It is that which qualifies us as beings.

Every self as pure subjectivity looks out on reality from a different subjective perspective than every other self, and this is why the self as, at core, pure subjectivity, is not generic, but individuated.

The way you explain it, there seems to be a contradiction. You say the self of pure subjectivity has a different subjective perspective than any other self. The problem is, "pure subjectivity" means nothing more or less than, or solely, relating to an object as it exists in the mind, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). This is a general abstraction, with absolutely no particulars relating to an individual. This philosophical definition of pure subjectivity is the one I have been using, and one of these pure subjectivity consciousnesses must necessarily be identical to all others. No individuation.

One non-philosophical definition of subjectivity is: the quality or condition of something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires. If this definition is adopted, a self of pure subjectivity would appear to be a conscious being with personality characteristics. Here there is no problem with the self of pure subjectivity (defined this way) being claimed to have a different subjective perspective than any other self.

It just seems to me that this latter definition of the essential core human self is very problematical with respect to the doctrine that the soul and the human are one and integrated in some unknown manner. In this doctrine, the soul is supposed to encompass very many such core selves. Since the core self of pure subjectivity defined this way is totally ideosyncratic and individuated with its own unique subjective point of view, it is inherently separate from and very different from the soul entity.

I'm getting a headache.

[Ninshub]

I'm getting a headache.

Yes indeed.    Relegate me (whoever that is!) in the confused category right now.

[Laird]

The way you explain it, there seems to be a contradiction. You say the self of pure subjectivity has a different subjective perspective than any other self. The problem is, "pure subjectivity" means nothing more or less than, or solely, relating to an object as it exists in the mind, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). This is a general abstraction, with absolutely no particulars relating to an individual. This philosophical definition of pure subjectivity is the one I have been using, and one of these pure subjectivity consciousnesses must necessarily be identical to all others. No individuation.

One non-philosophical definition of subjectivity is: the quality or condition of something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires. If this definition is adopted, a self of pure subjectivity would appear to be a conscious being with personality characteristics. Here there is no problem with the self of pure subjectivity (defined this way) being claimed to have a different subjective perspective than any other self.

It just seems to me that this latter definition of the essential core human self is very problematical with respect to the doctrine that the soul and the human are one and integrated in some unknown manner. In this doctrine, the soul is supposed to encompass very many such core selves. Since the core self of pure subjectivity defined this way is totally ideosyncratic and individuated with its own unique subjective point of view, it is inherently separate from and very different from the soul entity.

I'm getting a headache.

Let's talk definitions and concepts then so I can clarify. First off: yes, you seem to be right that I am using ("pure") "subjectivity" in a non-standard (non-dictionary) sense. It is not quite the non-philosophical sense you suggest though. The best way I can clarify, I think, is through that old process of stripping away aspects of ourselves until we reach the core.

Let's start with a "whole" person: this includes (at least) body, mind, personality, soul, consciousness, and self. It is possible to refer to this whole person as "myself", but that's not the (my) strict definition of the "self", which is what we are at core. So, we strip away until we find it.

First, we strip away the body. Now, we have a conscious mind with a personality and soul. We haven't yet reached core: there is still more that can be stripped away.

So, we strip away the mind (by which we strip away our ability to think in symbols and otherwise, to plan, to abstract, to perform skilled tasks, etc). Now, we have a conscious personality with a soul. There is still more that can be stripped though.

So, we strip out personality. Now we are just a consciousness with a soul but no unique sense of humour, no unique way of expressing ourselves and seeing things, etc.

Now, strip out the soul.

Then strip out consciousness.

Now, all we have left is the self: that which looks out at reality from a unique perspective. This is what I meant by "pure subjectivity" - "subjectivity" in the sense that this self is the (true, core) "subject" with a unique perspective. It doesn't have any other distinguishing characteristics because it is prior to both personality and soul.

What about the soul though? My conception of it is basically as a storehouse of treasure - all sorts of gifts from God, including wisdom, skills, talents, and personality traits. Potentially, it also stores memories, skills, and lessons learnt in both this life and any past lives, or maybe all of that is stored separately to the soul, which then is (would be) immutable - a permanent, unchanging, divinely-created resource.

Perhaps the soul on my conception could be seen as a richer and deeper type of personality, which strongly influences personality.

In this sense, on my conception, the soul is not conscious, but rather a resource, however, it's fine to more loosely refer to ourselves as a soul, which in this sense includes its (our) associated consciousness and (core) self.

One final clarification: the above stripping process might not be strictly layered - for example, although I stripped the soul out before consciousness, and personality before the soul, these might all really be at the same conceptual level of "layering". Other potential elements/layers that I didn't take into account in the stripping away include the various "bodies" proposed by some spiritual schools of thought (etheric, astral, karmic, spiritual, etc). Consider them stripped too.

Now you might see why the idea that the "soul" is a totally separate entity with its own self makes no sense to me. There might well be such an entity, some sort of "higher self" which guides us, but it is, then - on my terms - a separate self, potentially or presumably with its own, separate soul; in no way would I refer to it as "me", and certainly not as my soul.

Does that clarify my terms well enough?

[Laird]

It seems clear to me, then, that the self exists: it is that which remains when all else is stripped from the whole being. The only sense I can make of the idea of "no self" which is the subject of this thread, as held to especially by various Eastern schools of thought, is that, by the reasoning underlying the "no self" concept, this self that I have identified is purely abstract and conceptual, and not in any way "real" in the sense of tangibility, and that it is merely an abstract and conceptual consequence (in my "stripped back" sense) of the (otherwise, truly lacking in self) conglomeration of parts that makes up a being.

[Laird]

One further comment:

The above explanation of my view of the self hopefully also explains why I am perplexed when people say things like "If I don't retain my personality and memories when I reincarnate, then it's not the same me". No, dude. Your self - that which looks out on reality from a unique perspective - is prior to personality and memories (prior even to consciousness). Your personality and memories can be mixed, matched, and utterly changed, but you will still be you - that is, you will still be that which looks out on reality from your own unique perspective.

One further comment:

The above explanation of my view of the self hopefully also explains why I am perplexed when people say things like "If I don't retain my personality and memories when I reincarnate, then it's not the same me". No, dude. Your self - that which looks out on reality from a unique perspective - is prior to personality and memories (prior even to consciousness). Your personality and memories can be mixed, matched, and utterly changed, but you will still be you - that is, you will still be that which looks out on reality from your own unique perspective.

That resonates with me, Laird but I don't necessarily agree with all you've written in post 55. However, I don't want to debate it as I don't think it can take us any further in knowing for certain. Good topic, though, interesting points from all.

[Laird]

Hey, it doesn't have to be a debate, @tim, just a sharing of differences, but I know I'm a bit of a contentious chap at times, so I get why you'd be wary that it would inevitably become a debate.

If the soul (Light Being) contains most of the personality of the human, I don't think there's really a fundamental discontinuity. (What gets lost or "dies" according to Danison's NDE is the incarnated "animal" parts in the instinct for physical survival: fear, violence, self-servingness. She says in that same page of her book that most of the human personality that isn't part of the Light Being/soul is not much different than a domesticated cat or dog. Which isn't to say that Light Beings don't incarnate into cats and dogs either.)

I think what she means is in the general sense that dogs and cats are perceived ~ as lower animals without a rational mind, driven by instinct.

Which, in reality, I think is most far from the truth... in the sense that dogs have a... doggy rationality that makes sense to dog thinking, same with cat rationality, and so on. Dogs and cats, from what I've observed, are both intelligent and dumb, in the same sense that humans are. Some are clever. Some are stupid. And so on. In varying ways.

In that sense nbtruthman will continue on as nbtruthman after the death of the "human animal", but as an expanded nbtruthman. The way I'm imagining this is you will feel and be the same "you", but will contact again all those other memories and lives you also went through, and the other abilities and talents you have. You'll be nbtruthman +.

That's how I perceive it, too. The soul, as a whole, experiences no dissociation or veil, even if it is fully aware that its incarnate aspect experiences that. When the veil lifts at death, when we lose the dissociation... we're just our whole soul again, as if we were the whole soul the entire time, because, well, we actually were. We're still aware that we experienced dissociation from the whole, but the whole soul knew all of that already. Everything just clicks into place without a missing beat... we just weren't aware of the beat that we thought was missing, but was there the whole time, so very close, but beyond awareness.