Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Is there another part to that? » Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on March 28, 2005, at 0:28:54

In reply to Re: Is there another part to that?, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 0:09:29

> The DSM IV is pretty clear on the criteria "a relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self". But that doesn't answer the philosophical question.

Thats right. The DSM goes with 'identities' or 'alters' (as in 'alternative identities').
The post-traumatic model considers them to be 'fragments or parts of the greater self that is their summation'.
The socio-cognitive model considers them to be 'role plays' or elaborate fictions.
It was thought that 'identity' is ambiguous between a fragment and a role-play and they don't want to get too involved in controversay... Not 'selves' though. Nobody wants to call them selves but me, and Dennett, and Dennett & Humphries :-)

> Is it a spiritual question? A psychological one?

It is a philosophical question.
A metaphysical question.
Metaphysics is 'the first physics'. It is the study of what exists. The metaphysical question is 'how many selves can there be associated with a single body'? Some people say one and only one. Both of the psychological / psychiatric models seem to want to say that.

But before we can look at how many selves there can be to a body we need to look at just what a self is anyways. Thats why I need to develop that before arguing that alters are selves. That they are as real as any self could be.

But selves (I will argue) arise from certain kinds of complex minds that are able to produce certain kinds of patterns of complex behaviour.

So I start from mind, move to self, then consider the possibility of multiple selves.

The main objection to considering alters to be selves is dispensed with rather swiftly in a footnote. Most people have considered the objection to be decisive. But it doesn't logically follow so it doesn't hold. Simple as that.

But I am getting ahead of myself...

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:476326
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050315/msgs/476543.html