XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message <1141474652.213213.298400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,   
   Joseph H  writes   
   >   
   >To equate self with physicality and memory, as I think you do, is too   
   >limiting in my view.   
      
   To defend my proposal, Joseph, I'll have to take your points   
   individually.   
      
   > It eliminates completely, for example, all   
   >discussion about the rights of the self;   
      
   Why so? The rights of self, whatever that may mean, cannot, I believe,   
   form part of the definition of self, since that would involve circular   
   reasoning. Given a definition, you can discuss any aspect of the   
   subject, but the definition has to be agreed first, doesn't it?   
      
   > it avoids the mystery of   
   >genius,   
      
   I quoted Mozart specifically as an example of genius. My definition does   
   not show how a genius differs from others, except to assert that genius   
   comes from a combination of genetic and environmental circumstances,   
   which is about all there is, in my view.   
      
   > it avoids the issue as to why infants, who, prersumably, have a   
   >very small memory-bank, have very different personalities,   
      
   I don't think so. The smaller the memory bank, the more important the   
   genetic effects. This is why children change as they grow older: the   
   genetic effect remains the same, but the memories of experience become   
   more influential.   
      
   > it avoids   
   >the issue as to why siblings, who would presumably have many shared   
   >memories, may have vasty diffferent reactions to those memories. .   
      
   It doesn't avoid the issue, it suggests that the differences would stem   
   from different genetic sources, which even siblings have. It is also   
   true that, except for twins, shared memories will impinge on the   
   children at different stages in their lives, and will therefore interact   
   differently with their previous memories. Even identical twins have   
   different experiences out of the home, and sometimes in it. I have twin   
   grand-daughters, who are very aware that one was delivered first, and   
   therefore counts as the senior.   
      
   >In fact the question of self vis-a-vis personality has hardly been   
   >raised in this thread at all. Is self personality? Is it more than   
   >personality? Is the concept of self meaningful at all? Is it no more   
   >than a hold-all term for the complexity of the human person, a term   
   >which will vary endlessly depending on local culture and expectation?   
      
   I think I can answer "Yes" to most of those. Clearly it cannot be both   
   personality and more than personality, so I'd settle for the former. If   
   I were put on the rack I might suggest that personality is less   
   dependent on the physical factors.  And although all the factors in your   
   last question help to shape self, hopefully they won't change the   
   definition!   
      
   >The debate in this thread has been fascinating in one way - but   
   >dispiriting in another. The majority of the contributors have been   
   >eager to embrace the scientific model - but loathe to approach any   
   >holistic or philosopical or even, in the case I referred to in an   
   >earlier posting, personal approach to self. My suggestion was that self   
   >is personality-in-action; also that self involved massive collusion and   
   >compliance with human behaviour in general, behaviour as a species,   
   >that is. Such behaviour incorporated such elements as theatricality,   
   >submission to form and beauty, undue reliance on belief, immersion in   
   >the mores of the group. In this sense self is actually a participatory   
   >activity. We are "pitching in", consciously or not. I suggest that   
   >there must be a hormone or a chemical action mediating such a vigorous   
   >activity. People with particular conditions - Asperger's, for example -   
   >may be headline examples of individuals lacking the requisite   
   >chermistry for the activity mentioned above. But I assume there must be   
   >many other individuals who also stand back from the theatricality and   
   >endemic finiteness of the species and who may, I say may, wish for a   
   >more intelligent response to the reality and the challenge of   
   >existence.   
      
   Well, yes, Joseph, but I believe all those things are within the scope   
   of my definition. If you disagree, point up why, and I'll be happy to   
   discuss it.   
      
   Thank you for the stimulating questions; I hope you find the answers   
   useful.   
      
   --   
   ralph   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)