Is the human self nonexistent?

but I know I'm a bit of a contentious chap at times

I wouldn't have said so but I guess we all get a bit contentious, sometimes.

I identify the soul-self as essentially a different and separate self, having the accumulation of all the past experiences and learnings of all the previous lives (plus probably another element of true uniqueness), an essentially separate and more advanced being, that exists simultaneously with the limited incarnated human. A vastly more developed being that may appear to the deep NDEer as the perceived "Being of Light" theorized by NDE reseacher Kenneth Ring to really be the soul of the NDEer, obviously then existing separately from the human.

But why is it obvious that it is separate...?

I perceive it to only **appear** to be separate, because of the dissociation we experience from the whole soul. The whole soul is fully aware of everything about the incarnate personality, because it technically **is** the incarnate personality ~ or at least, the incarnate personality is aspect of the soul.

The soul experiences no disconnect from the incarnate personality, but knows that the incarnate personality isn't aware of its soul, or at least, doesn't always immediately recognize it for what it is.

I've had experiences of my Higher Self... one, a male thrown into deepest shadow by the overpowering light behind him. Calm, with an hard-to-perceive wisdom... probably symbolized by the near-blinding Light. The other experience was of a female, that was represented by the cosmos, albeit exuding a powerful and deep love and compassion and understanding. Playful, happy, also with a hidden wisdom that I wasn't aware of at the time.

It's almost like an experience of what some call the Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine.

[Ninshub]

I resonate with what Christian Sandburg is saying here. First, there's no possible way human language can truly articulate those higher realities.

But he talks about "layers of the self", so that the highest me has always free will and chooses if and when to incarnate, but lower layers of the self may be experience being forced to or stuck in a cycle of reincarnation.

Starts with Melissa's question at 16:25.



How you want to attempt to articulate or resolve that logically or philosophically is a secondary to me.

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?

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be at all coherent at all to me. You strip out every element of individuality, personality, likes, dislikes, talents, dispositions, memories, and finally mind, consciousness and even the soul itself. Absolutely everything that a human being senses in himself to make him an individual human being having a self of any kind. Then you say that whatever this poor remnant is, is some sort of all-important core self consisting of pure subjectivity, that is, a pure uinadulterated perception of things from the first person perspective 

First off, perception itself is one of the most important elements of consciousness, but you have already stripped off consciousness. 

Secondly, you then say that the remaining all-important core self incorporates a rich storehouse of all the personality and other individuating charcteristics and elements that you just stripped off. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The "being" (if it really qualifies as one, given that it has no consciousness and no distinguishing characteristics, which you have stripped off), seems to me from your own descripton to have little or no humanly meaningful qualities that could qualify it as a core self. You say yourself that it it is more like a resource.

But you then say, " ...perhaps the soul on my conception could be seen as a richer and deeper type of personality, which strongly influences personality." But the core self per your description has no consciousness and personality (these things having been stripped off) therefore can't be any sort of being. Disconnect.

[Laird]

Just for interest's sake re previous discussions on the notion that there is only one Self in reality:

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.

Arguably, we can go even further, and strip out even the "looking out at reality from a unique perspective"-ness, and thus reduce the self simply to the "that" which looks out (from that unique perspective).

My original thinking, before @Titus Rivas convinced me otherwise, was that it is possible that this "that" is the same "that" looking out from all of the different perspectives. It needn't be, I figured, but it was at least possible.

Having written that out explicitly, I guess I'm due for another "vaccination" from Titus (haha), because my original thinking seems reasonable enough.

[Ninshub]

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.

My one problem with your reduction here is I don't know if it makes sense to have a "perspective" without consciousness/awareness.

[Laird]

Then you say that whatever this poor remnant is, is [...] a pure uinadulterated perception of things from the first person perspective

No, I didn't say it perceives, at least, not insofar as it is the core, stripped back self. Perception is, as you point out, dependent on consciousness, which is layered on top of the core self.

Secondly, you then say that the remaining all-important core self incorporates a rich storehouse of all the personality and other individuating charcteristics and elements that you just stripped off.

No, I didn't. I said that the soul does. Admittedly, the confusion is probably due to my misspeaking a little in this earlier post, to which I've added a little editing note.

You say yourself that [the core self --Laird] is more like a resource.

Similarly as above: no, I say that the soul is more like a resource, not the core self.

To try to clarify even more: although in that earlier post, I conflated the soul with the core self, that was fuzzy thinking. As indicated in the post to which you were responding, I actually see the soul as more of a resource, although loosely speaking we can use it to mean our core self plus consciousness plus soul resources, which is slightly less "core".

[Laird]

My one problem with your reduction here is I don't know if it makes sense to have a "perspective" without consciousness/awareness.

Maybe I can resolve it for you: I'm not contending that there are any core selves hanging around with all other layers of being stripped from them. So, there are two ways to resolve your problem. The first is to say that the "stripping back" is conceptual only; the core self always is overlaid with consciousness - the "stripping back" is simply to identify what we are at core, not to deny the rest of what we are. The second is to consider "perspective" as simply a potential of the core self, which is realised when consciousness is added into the mix.

How does that work for you?

[Ninshub]

I'll have to think about it Laird! I appreciate very much all your efforts at clarifying and being very precise in the formulations of your conceptualizations. I'll have to give a careful reading of your posts in the last few pages to make sure I fully understand what you're saying, and then be a in a position to "evaluate" your thoughts.

No, I didn't say it perceives, at least, not insofar as it is the core, stripped back self. Perception is, as you point out, dependent on consciousness, which is layered on top of the core self.


No, I didn't. I said that the soul does. Admittedly, the confusion is probably due to my misspeaking a little in this earlier post, to which I've added a little editing note.


Similarly as above: no, I say that the soul is more like a resource, not the core self.

To try to clarify even more: although in that earlier post, I conflated the soul with the core self, that was fuzzy thinking. As indicated in the post to which you were responding, I actually see the soul as more of a resource, although loosely speaking we can use it to mean our core self plus consciousness plus soul resources, which is slightly less "core".

Thanks anyway, but I guess at this point it is about as clear as mud.