Is "Self" an invention or progression?

Question

Or a progressive invention?

1) We are the "sum of our experiences".

2) Memory is constantly falsified and invented, both in response to *internal* emotion/self-preservation, and in response to *external* stimuli.

Therefore, how is "Self" determined or determinable?
What, in your opinion, are the predominant factors?

To “Mystery”:

Minus the last line, the third part of your answer was interesting, but as for your #1-- both personal experience and ad hominem attack are invalid arguments. My first point was a quote, not necessarily my personal view. As for your #2, the creation of entirely false memories is verifiable by an uncountable number of studies. One was widely reported just this week.

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/courses/2004-05/winter/psy130/WadeFalseMemory.pdf

http://www.writing.uci.edu/holderfield%20planting.pdf

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/loftus.mem.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-19.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1098943,00.html

Gee – Yes, thank you. It’s *definitely* more than simple nature/nurture. “Actions for judgment”: Interesting, and perhaps a bit circular--is judgment part of self?

Imagine, Across the Universe, or whatever good tune you are today- I agree, self is never fully understood, and I find you a bit poetic.

Siegfrid- You certainly know how to wield a pen (or a keyboard, as it may happen). I always think you should get points for language alone. Definition by subtraction, is it? That actually makes perfect sense to me. I’ll let you know if I ever get to the core of the apple. :-)

Szyn- A brilliant answer, as usual. Really love your final line, in particular.

Whiner – LOL-Honestly, when DID you get so lazy?

Zelda Hunter- Thanks, I’m always gratified when someone thinks one of my theories sounds plausible. I like your idea of the solidifying core, very engaging.

Valac Gypsy- This is an illuminating answer—it was a difficult choice for BA. You made several great points; I especially like your paragraph “self is determinable”. Also, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve decided to leave-- I think there are still people and ideas here that make it worthwhile to stay…

Fr. Al- As Gypsy said, what a wonderful answer, and may I add, in keeping with your usual high standard. Aside from sharing hilarious and precious anecdotes (anything that went with ketchup==lol), I think you’ve made a valid point: call it genetics, call it “self”, call it soul, there’s some integral part of us that stubbornly refuses to take notice of environment. Self does not necessarily adhere to rules.

Answer 1

First, the idea that memory can be falsified stems back to the early 70s. There were a series of famous debates between Mclelland and Loftus, both experimental psychologists... Loftus was able to demonstrate that false memories could be created. The subjects, were profoundly confident, that those memories were true. It was that research that help provide a more rational evaluation of possible child abuse cases in which children were initially interviewed in a manner that actually encouraged false memories.

Secondly, our memories- the ones that we actively recall are selective. More anxiety-provoking or disturbing memories, for example, are often repressed (e.g., the response to internal stimuli).

The relationship between our experiences, our memories , and our sense of self is interactive. It is not exactly the actions that we take, or the judgments that we make in relation to our experiences, but rather the meaning that we give to those actions, memories and experiences. Indeed, we gain as much of a sense of self from the actions we decide not to take.

It an interactive process because the manner in which we mediate our experiences is in the service of the self. Experiences that appear to support our self-concept are enhanced in several ways. Experiences that are incongruent are often dismissed, denied or in other ways distorted. Our sense of self is quite resistant to change- part of the reason why psychotherapy is not a quick process.

Nevertheless, our sense of self does change over time. Our ability to filter our experiences is limited by the need to maintain some contact with reality. A severly distorted sense of self would not be effective in meeting environmental demands, of course unless that self became a politician (:-).

We seem to be "hard-wired" to be most impressionable and open to self development in childhood. Many people believe that the most predominant factor to the development of our sense of self, is the reactions we initially perceive from our parents (e.g., the look of love a mother gives to a child). The world is perceived as "safe" (or not) and everything builds fom there.

Answer 2

When I began to see others as a mirror & lose the sense of separation so much it totally redefined how I experienced everything in my world! It's true before this I saw everything, people, places, & things as a series of events that shaped me either for better or worse. It is much related to the victim role, it's happening to me & I have no power of choice! Yet when I began to see myself in others, as others, it changed how I interacted with "others". It brought to my understanding more insight into true giving without loss on some level, real Love & how you can Love your neighbor AS YOUR SELF! Most of all it takes away any kind of judgment. Judgment is a tool of small self . In knowing it is basically garbage it must see everyone as less than itself to be ok. But if everyone is Self, is a mirror than what is reflected back is always myself. If I see arrogance in someone, perhaps I need to do an internal inventory. But if I see Love, Joy, Peace, then that is what I am projecting. This is a great Q. & an in depth answer could fill volumes & never really get to the heart of it. That is really the difference, one sees with the mind, the other with the heart! Blessings!

Answer 3

We are the sum of our experiences so, I don't believe we are the invention until we take our last breath. Until that time, we are merely the progression of a "prototype"...reshaped and re-formed by our life experiences.

I know from my own experience that so much has happened to me in this past year...I'm definitely not the same person I was even two months ago, and what has changed the most is my sense of "self". And I can be sure that I will continue to transform until experience no longer has any effect on me (death)...and only then will I have become the finished product.

Answer 4

1) No. We are reactions to experiences. I was molested as a kid, I'm not a child molester. Think before you speak, it'll work wonders for you in the future.

2) Memory is usually not created, unless there's some outside reason for the creation (mental trauma and such). We usually alter our memory, but never falsify it completely. We tend to remember the same event differently from other people who were at the same event.

Self is an illusion unreachable. We create a model image in our head and try to be this person, but we'll always fail. It's because humans aren't consistent in their personality. We're moments in time that are strung together to create an image of "self". This is my theory, and most people will disagree with it. But, most people are stupid.

Answer 5

While the element of progression is there, we continually "write" and "over write" our memories. I'm one who operates more on discursive memory. I never took notes in college, and remembered far more when it came to exams than my classmates who kept copious notebooks and journals. Some thought I had a "photographic memory". It is anything but. In my mind I kept a running argument with the discussion, reading it and incorporating it as part of my own thought process. It sometimes was distracting to others because I'd do other things at the same time, effectively slowing down the process of my thinking to incorporate more, like people who doodle during meetings. Not everyone thinks the same way, or keeps the same balance of internal and external experience. I don't think anyone else can determine what one's self is and how it operates. The sum of our experiences is both a complicated and very simple thing, a paradox and a mystery. I try not to let others falsify my memory, but cannot always guarantee what my own consciousness and subconscious is doing in that same regard. Self is intensely subjective, and experience even with objects is intersubjective. (reference Hans Georg Gadamer "Warheit und Methode")

[I am not the invention or pattern of my parents, neither was I ever a "tabula raza". I look at my children and grandchildren, and I see in them each a distinct and different "self", from my eldest daughter's distinctive and determined "My DO IT!!!" as a toddler, to her daughter's reliance on facial expression and refusal to speak until she was two ( not developmentally disturbed or backward, she knew words and sentences, she just chose not to use them while her expressions were completely suitable to any necessary communication). With my eldest we kept the crystal on the lowest shelf of an open book case, with my youngest we kept Tupperware in all the lower cabinets. Her sister got her own room when she tied all her fine gold chains in knots. We discovered she could get our of her crib when put down for a nap. She went down to my office and climbed to the third shelf up from my desk, got a bottle of stencil correction fluid and painted the cat bright pink! She and the emergency room were on first name basis. Every day was a new adventure. We could dress her in anything that went with Ketchup, while her sister wore fancy pinafores and dirndls she'd change before they got dirty. Same environment, very different concept of "self". Different memories and interpretations of the same events.]

Answer 6

I don't have a degree in psychology. I took just one course in Cognitive Psychology. This is the branch that deals with how we learn. But I still think the analogy is valid. It has to be "progressive invention."
We are constantly scanning, evaluating, and then forming internal representations of what we encounter. The process is called "assimilation". Once we have built the internal model, we own it so to speak. We understand it.
The same process undoubtedly governs our internal scanning, evaluation and internal modeling of ourselves. This model we form is not static. We change parts of it every day, for whatever reasons.
As we get older and more mature, the daily changes we make are less central to our core "being" or "self". Every year, unless we are disrupted by life-changing experiences, the center of our internal core becomes tougher and less changeable. That is probably why older people become "more of what they are" as time goes on.

Answer 7

Self in the serrate is zoomorphic. Jungian psychology defines the inner self as the anima. It isn't conscious, but unconscious and in sequence with the underlying bestial mind.

The self is progression, as in is a cycle of the unconscious and is determinable and determined, such are falsified memories, they live, firing neurons aslant into the consciousness.

Dominating the heap is the absorbent nature of the mind, sucking into it's theater anything and everything in it's vicinity, but not that such awareness you posess, unconscious it be.

Answer 8

I feel that Hemsted made many valid points.
In my opinion, "self" is never clearly defined, while each of us is unique, & basically "true" to our nature, we're in a constant state of transformation & "recycling." Thus, while there is progression, we also incorporate "who" we were before. An endless circle.
It's very, very true that some peole invent themselves as they wish they were, or as they would like others to perceive them. Of course, that is not "self."
As for memory--the selectivity of memory is fascinating. Often convoluted, consciously or not. Memories shut out for lack of resolution, or pain. Memories far more delightful in retrospect than they were in reality.
I could never believe that we are the sum of our experiences as substantial an impact as they have. Many people believe we are born like a blank slate & "become" only through parents, environment, our small circle of society. I have NEVER found this to be true.
I don't believe "self" is determinable except for the few who are in touch with the very kernel of themselves, non-intellectually. Even then, we may float about its surfaces in the Newtonian world in which we live.

Note: Hi, Zelda, you type much faster than I! I agree with much of what you said, (not all), but it's quite sound as far as it goes. Thumbs up!

What a wonderful answer from Father Al! "Almost" makes me wish I weren't leaving.

Answer 9

1) We are not the sum of our experiences. We are the result of how we act upon our experiences.
2)"truth' is constantly falsified and REinvented in response to logical/moral considerations as well as situational needs.

[to Dude] If that were the case, we would all be 'carbon copies' of our parents.

To clarify: Genetics sets up the framework. Environment and experience serve as the library we reference to access data pertinent to the situation. The actions we take as a result of judgement is what determines our identity.

Answer 10

"self" is a progression therefore it can not be an invention. for those who think that they have invented themselves don't know themselves yet. All of my memories are accurate. At times I may get pieces and flashes of images that don't make sense to me but I don't call them memories I call them visions.
-good day to you.