![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 15:57:53
I read through the Dennett link. He is a clear writer, very good at using metaphors, perhaps a bit too good. I think that sometimes metaphors can be a bit addictive and you wind up trying to squeeze or simplify some complex material into something that fits the metaphor.However, I do think his head of state (mind) metaphor is a good one. He goes on to say “But in some cases the competing fictive-selves are so equally balanced, or different constituencies within her are so unwilling to accept the result of the election, that constitutional chaos reigns – and there are snap elections (or coups d’etat) all the time.”
Well he can say that again.
Right now, I am going through one of those. My director of external affairs (a competent, business-savvy, take-charge personality) is being ousted by a few other parts. Well she suffered a few losses (demotions at work, etc.) and then it seems as if some of the others have been strengthened in therapy.
She is still around but not very strong any more. My therapist seems to think that this is a good thing, that she was one of the parts developed to deal with my mother, and he is glad that this part is less dominant. I am glad too in some ways because I don’t like her (or me as her? Back to the question of whether I am another alter or just a connector). But we don’t know how to function at meetings, social events without her.
Maybe that’s why I am so lonely lately. She managed all my relationships with real people (except my son, my therapist, and you fellow Babblers). I have no idea how to interact with the world without her. She had all the formulas down.
I feel lost and alone. How could anyone other than you guys ever understand?
Posted by Daisym on July 28, 2005, at 18:30:39
In reply to Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested, posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 15:57:53
I'm feeling sort of the same way lately -- I'm in so many parts and pieces (though not alters) that I feel chaos all around me. And the more competent "gate-keeper" part is slower to defend and less able to keep up. Which is good for therapy and bad for work.
My therapist thinks this is a good thing too. He said she was an essential part of me for coping when I was child so we need to respect the role she played. But he wants to make room for the other parts of me, which he describes as "exiled" for a long time.
but I feel like I'm failing now in so many places, especially at work. And I think the gate keeper was really, really good a dissociating. It is a difficult balance to achieve, isn't it?
Posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 19:22:25
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested, posted by Daisym on July 28, 2005, at 18:30:39
Thanks Daisy.
It sounds like we are in a similar place.
My therapist says "F*** work. They don't pay you enough. They don't treat you well. You've spent too much of your life working too hard."
Yeah, easy for him to say. :(
Posted by alexandra_k on July 30, 2005, at 19:45:39
In reply to Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested, posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 15:57:53
Hi. Sorry I have been a while in responding. I have had a really busy week... Glad you liked the Dennett link :-) That was a talk that he gave some people. I'm not sure who he was speaking too, but I think it was a general audience rather than an audience of philosophers specifically. That is a mixed blessing. It means that he does talk a lot in metaphors and anecdotes, but it also means that what he does say is realitively clear and comprehensible.
If you want to know more of the details... Then you might like to look at his more technical work.
If you like the general story he has written a lovely one which involved a thought experiment where his brain gets removed from his body and placed in a vat of nutrients... it controls his body via radio signal... He walks his body to visit his brain... Sits there puzzling over:
'Here I am... Daniel Dennett... Looking at my brain'.
But then he figures it should really be:
'Here I am... Daniel Dennett... Being looked at by my body'.
Its brilliant, but very much a story that leaves more unanswered than it purports to answer.I can give you links to whatever you would like if you are interested to read some more.
My views... Are different again. Dennett believes that selves are a purely fictional construct. Strictly speaking there isn't any such thing as a self. I agree there isn't any such thing but I conclude there really is a self. It just turns out to be a little different than one might have supposed. I don't suppose a hell of a lot rests on that linguistic decision...
So Dennett has been a major influence in my thinking - but I don't swallow him hook line and sinker.
> However, I do think his head of state (mind) metaphor is a good one. He goes on to say “But in some cases the competing fictive-selves are so equally balanced, or different constituencies within her are so unwilling to accept the result of the election, that constitutional chaos reigns – and there are snap elections (or coups d’etat) all the time.”
> Well he can say that again.:-)
> She is still around but not very strong any more. My therapist seems to think that this is a good thing, that she was one of the parts developed to deal with my mother, and he is glad that this part is less dominant. I am glad too in some ways because I don’t like her (or me as her?Ok. But it sounds like there are some skills that she has that could be useful at times...
>Back to the question of whether I am another alter or just a connector). But we don’t know how to function at meetings, social events without her.
Yes. It would be nice if the skills, abilities, knowledge she has could be more accessible to your other parts...
> Maybe that’s why I am so lonely lately. She managed all my relationships with real people (except my son, my therapist, and you fellow Babblers). I have no idea how to interact with the world without her. She had all the formulas down.If you could access more of her (and integrate that to a certain extent with all the other stuff that you know) then you might end up with the best of both worlds.
(((Cricket)))
Has to get better... Has to...
Posted by alexandra_k on July 30, 2005, at 20:10:27
In reply to Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested, posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 15:57:53
>Back to the question of whether I am another alter or just a connector
Okay, lets go back to that...
There is the social and physical environment...
And there is your body / brain which also has a genetic inheritance...
And the meeting of those two things produces your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, goals, desires, memories etc.
You experience some of them consciously.
Those things are mental contents.
The contents of your mind.
The contents of consciousness
The things you are conscious of.Nobody is conscious of everything going on inside them all at once.
Attention is a little like a flashlight and it can only 'light up' or focus on a little area at a time.So sometimes you can access some contents - but not other contents.
Its about making the contents more accessible.
You could say the self is a function from mental contents to behaviour (including verbal behaviour - what you say)
You could say that if the set of mental contents is radically different at different times then there are numerically different functions from mental contents to behaviour (in the sense that each alter or collection of consciousness constitutes a different self). Or you could say that it is the same function and it is just the content that is different.
I don't think a lot hangs on this...
Either way it is about being able to move that torch around a little more freely to get more of a general picture as to what is going on inside the body. And more info has got to be a good thing...
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 15:27:35
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » Daisym, posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 19:22:25
> My therapist says "F*** work. They don't pay you enough. They don't treat you well. You've spent too much of your life working too hard."I wish my therapist had said that to me!
I've only read a little bit of Dennett (I like him a lot) but I've read a fair bit of Foucault on the Self. I'm inclined to agree with the theorists who argue that the Self is a construct and doesn't have any kind of essential existence.
I like your therapist, from what you've said. He sounds good.
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 16:31:44
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » cricket, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 15:27:35
> I'm inclined to agree with the theorists who argue that the Self is a construct and doesn't have any kind of essential existence.
But... the self isn't wholly a construct. There are reality constraints (environment, genetic, experiences etc). And just because there isn't an essential essence (at the purely physical level of analysis) doesn't mean there can't be a functional essence on a higher level of analysis (e.g., that a self is a function from mental states to behaviours).
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 17:07:44
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 16:31:44
> But... the self isn't wholly a construct. There are reality constraints (environment, genetic, experiences etc). And just because there isn't an essential essence (at the purely physical level of analysis) doesn't mean there can't be a functional essence on a higher level of analysis (e.g., that a self is a function from mental states to behaviours).
I suppose it depends on what you mean by a construct. Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self? I know what you mean about a functional essence, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists it is fragile and prone to fragmentation. And that fragility seems to problematize the idea that it is essential (it seems to me). I suppose one could argue that the functional essence is inherently fragile, but I would come back and say that's because it's a construct...
These are interesting questions. I'm a fat*ss foucauldian ho, so I probably see almost everything in terms of constructs. I resist any kind of idea of an absolute. For me it's very politically freeing, though I recognise that many people may consider my ideas to be postmodern w*nk, and that's OK!
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 18:55:18
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 17:07:44
> I suppose it depends on what you mean by a construct.
Absolutely!
If you mean to say that we aren't just born with a self that persists unchanging throughout the organisms lifetime then I agree 100%>Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self?
Yes. But I would go further. I would say that those things: social / physical environment + genes actually *determine* or *cause* the self.
>I know what you mean about a functional essence, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists it is fragile and prone to fragmentation. And that fragility seems to problematize the idea that it is essential (it seems to me). I suppose one could argue that the functional essence is inherently fragile, but I would come back and say that's because it's a construct...
Ah. Here is a (attempted) functional definition of the self: The self is a function from beliefs, desires, perceptions, goals, memories etc to behaviour.
That means that the strength of those things and their causal connections determines what people will do. Thats what I think the self is.
But... I'm not sure that that notion captures quite what we mean by the self. The everyday term 'self' is something of a vague notion...
> These are interesting questions. I'm a fat*ss foucauldian ho, so I probably see almost everything in terms of constructs. I resist any kind of idea of an absolute. For me it's very politically freeing, though I recognise that many people may consider my ideas to be postmodern w*nk, and that's OK!
I'll admit that I haven't read any Foucault. Don't know that much about him. Don't know much about postmodernism either... But I'm happy to talk that stuff... I've been reading some stuff about therapy (mostly critiques of the medical model) that have arisen from the postmodernist / feminist critique and I do believe they have some interesting points...
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 21:57:37
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 18:55:18
> >Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self?
>
> Yes. But I would go further. I would say that those things: social / physical environment + genes actually *determine* or *cause* the self.That makes sense, though I'm not sure how causing the self is different from constructing the self. I suppose I'd say that the self, having been constructed, can be deconstructed and reconfigured as social and physical environments change. But that possibility would also arise from your way of describing it, as far as I can tell.
> >I know what you mean about a functional essence, but it seems to me that if such a thing exists it is fragile and prone to fragmentation. And that fragility seems to problematize the idea that it is essential (it seems to me). I suppose one could argue that the functional essence is inherently fragile, but I would come back and say that's because it's a construct...
>
> Ah. Here is a (attempted) functional definition of the self: The self is a function from beliefs, desires, perceptions, goals, memories etc to behaviour.
>
> That means that the strength of those things and their causal connections determines what people will do. Thats what I think the self is.And, I suppose, there's the influence of other people, of social structures, etc. One question, for me anyway, is whether the self is something people possess or have, or whether it's more of a reflection of a wide range of factors. If it's the latter, then it's harder to say it's determined in any way. Instead, perhaps it's perceived.
> But... I'm not sure that that notion captures quite what we mean by the self. The everyday term 'self' is something of a vague notion...
I think in everyday usage the term self is implied to be quite a stable thing: something reliable and straightforward. But I don't think it's that simple.
> I'll admit that I haven't read any Foucault. Don't know that much about him. Don't know much about postmodernism either... But I'm happy to talk that stuff... I've been reading some stuff about therapy (mostly critiques of the medical model) that have arisen from the postmodernist / feminist critique and I do believe they have some interesting points...
Foucault is fun but hard going. When I started reading his work it would take me an hour to read a single page. But after a while you get used to it.
I haven't yet read anything postmodern or feminist about therapy. I'd really like to. I find much of the argument in the medical model to be quite circular. I'd be keen to see how it's challenged! Is there anything in particular you'd recommend?
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 22:25:04
In reply to Re: Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 21:57:37
> > >Don't factors like environment, genetics, and experiences have roles to play in constructing the Self?
> > Yes. But I would go further. I would say that those things: social / physical environment + genes actually *determine* or *cause* the self.(Here I should have said *constitute* rather than *cause*... Or maybe not... Now I'm getting confused. social / physical environment + genes CAUSE beliefs desires etc. The mental states are like Many H2O molecules interacting in certain ways. The H2O molecules *constitutes* water. The beliefs and desires *constitutes* the self. It doesn't *cause* water, it just IS water. Thats more what I meant..)
> That makes sense, though I'm not sure how causing the self is different from constructing the self. I suppose I'd say that the self, having been constructed, can be deconstructed and reconfigured as social and physical environments change. But that possibility would also arise from your way of describing it, as far as I can tell.Yeah. The social and natural environmental inputs change over time...
And I guess thats what shows you that our dispute is more verbal than substantial (in the sense that we are saying fairly much the same thing even though you say 'no' and i say 'yes' with respect to whether there is any such thing as the self). A lot of philosophy is like that. Thats why you can still learn a lot even though there might superficially look like there is a lot of disagreement, people actually agree on quite a lot...
> > Ah. Here is a (attempted) functional definition of the self: The self is a function from beliefs, desires, perceptions, goals, memories etc to behaviour.
> > That means that the strength of those things and their causal connections determines what people will do. Thats what I think the self is.> And, I suppose, there's the influence of other people, of social structures, etc.
Sure thing. The picture looks like this:
social + natural environment + innate inheritance -> beliefs desires etc -> behaviour.The arrows -> are supposed to be causal.
We'd quite like there to be 100% determinism between the links of the chain - but there might be an irreducibly probabilistic element...>One question, for me anyway, is whether the self is something people possess or have, or whether it's more of a reflection of a wide range of factors. If it's the latter, then it's harder to say it's determined in any way. Instead, perhaps it's perceived.
Hmm. I'm not too sure what to say there. The self just is a function from mental states to behaviour...
Or... And this is something that I talk about in a paper that I wrote a few years ago... Thats what a mind is. A mind is a function from environment + genes to behaviour.
Then you can look at patterns in behaviour over time (characteristic ways people have of responding). You could try to build a self out of patterns in behaviour that emerge over time... That might be a better way to go if you want the self to be more distinctively human than minds...
> I think in everyday usage the term self is implied to be quite a stable thing: something reliable and straightforward. But I don't think it's that simple.okay. though patterns in behaviour over time... characteristic ways of responding... might be relevant to that notion of a self.
There is quite a bit of stuff on personal identity especially on continuity over time. Lots of stuff done in the 60's and its starting to become a hot topic again now.
And about bodily and psychological (mental state, memory belief) criterions of personal identity.
> Foucault is fun but hard going. When I started reading his work it would take me an hour to read a single page. But after a while you get used to it.LOL! I still find philosophy to be a lot like that.
> I haven't yet read anything postmodern or feminist about therapy. I'd really like to. I find much of the argument in the medical model to be quite circular. I'd be keen to see how it's challenged! Is there anything in particular you'd recommend?Hmm. I'll try to get some names etc off my friend. Mostly... I've been reading about narrative therapy... They aren't so keen on the medical model. According to the medical model the doctor is the expert and the client goes along because they don't know what to do and so the expert is supposed to be an authority on how to fix the problem. According to this model the client is the expert because they are talking about their experince. The therapist is supposed to walk alongside the client and help the client come to their own understanding and insights.
Its supposed to go some of the way towards remidying the power imbalance etc etc.
Whether it works or not remains to be seen
(its my current therapists orientation)
IMO... harder to get attached (probably because she doesn't come across as an authority at all).
Whether that is good or not remains to be seen...
I don't know...
But... It is a lot different.
Posted by kerria on August 2, 2005, at 11:31:39
In reply to Lost - for Alex and anyone else interested, posted by cricket on July 28, 2005, at 15:57:53
(((((Cricket))))))
Yes- i understand how lonely and ackward it feels to not have her be there during the times when you have to be with people. It's so hard. i always talk to my T about how hard it is- it feels like there is 'no one to be,' that there isn't a place for me in the world.
Sending peace and comfort to you, Cricket. i'm sorry that it's so hard now.
Please take care,
kerria
Posted by cricket on August 3, 2005, at 16:39:53
In reply to Re: Lost » cricket, posted by alexandra_k on July 30, 2005, at 19:45:39
Hi Tamar and Alex,
I am going to try to stretch my brain and jump in a bit. And hopefully not get kicked to the religion thread.
I might have a bit of a different perspective on this because I am a practicing buddhist and buddhism has a lot to say about the existence, or rather the lack of existence, of a self.
I’m not sure where Buddhism diverges from Dennett’s or Foucault’s theories but it would be interesting to see.
Let me first say that I just have a practicing layman’s knowledge of buddhism. Perhaps either one or both of you know more than I do but I will explain it as I understand it and then please jump in and correct me.
Buddhism does not believe in a substantial, immutable self. No big shakes for us in the post-modern era, but a radical thought for 2500 years ago and a big departure from Hinduism, which believes that reincarnation is not possible without a enduring self.
So in Buddhism the self is indeed a construct, a construct determined by interrelated causes and conditions. I am going to excerpt from the following URL http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/ecological_self.html because I think it explains the no self concept clearly even though the article goes in a different direction.
We have “latent or unconscious tendencies laid down as patterns of habituation though the performance of action, actions not just of the body, but of speech and mind as well. Arising thus from previous activity, this karmic conditioning in turn shapes future actions, and these conditioning forces or energy patterns are not only multiple but of varying direction and intensity…We might imagine the self as an extremely complex vector problem, the sort of mathematical exercise where one must identify both the direction and velocity of different forces operating on an object in order to determine its trajectory from that point forward…The self is thus a complicated and ongoing interactive process, the immediate configuration of which determines the overall trajectory of the being, a trajectory that is constantly being altered as each moment brings a new equation of interacting conditionings – some newly created through current activity, others carrying over as the continuing influence of previous actions.”
So when we think of DID, and I don’t know of any buddhist literature that discusses this, it becomes so much more complicated. Each “self”, and alters certainly qualify as selves by the above definition, has its own set of interactive processes, its own trajectory. Is integration even possible from this viewpoint? It certainly wouldn’t be like shopping. I’ll take a bit from this alter, some of that, I don’t think I need any of that. Somehow the actions of body, speech and mind of the alters must be unified first? I don’t know. It seems discouraging to me.
Does anyone know a person who successfully integrated different parts? Could she no longer distinguish them? Or is integration really something else? Do you just socialize some parts, ignore others, give more airtime to the socially acceptable parts?
It makes my head ache. I think it’s time to bring this up to my therapist.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 16:44:59
In reply to Re: Lost - Long, posted by cricket on August 3, 2005, at 16:39:53
I really want to answer but I really can't at the mo...
Give me a week???
Posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 16:53:25
In reply to Re: Lost - Long » cricket, posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 16:44:59
I'll just say briefly.....
That there are imputs (experiences etc)
And then internal causal interactions (between mental states such as experiences, beliefs, memories, desires etc)
And then outputs (behaviours, speech)And so the self is an imput - output device.
The imputs (from the environment) changes over time...
The outputs (into the environment) also changes over time...
And the internal causal interaction changes too as the contents of consciousness / mind /(the unconscious if you like) change over time.So there is a flux there...
Different contents...But through all that the input output device AT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION retains its identity as the SAME THING. Typically in virtue of being the input output device of the SAME BODY (though there is a lot more to it than that and things get complicated).
If you see alters as having different internal relations mostly (with respect to beliefs and desires) then you can have the SAME input output device that deals with different mental contents at different points in time.Whether you choose to see each alter as a numerically different input output device (self) or whether you choose to see the whole body as having just one input output device that deals with different mental contents at different points in time is (IMO) solely a matter of the way you choose to look at it...
So I would say whether you see one self that radically changes over time... Or whether you see many selves that have much more internal consistency is a matter of decision. It is like whether you choose to see the duck or whether you choose to see the rabbit in an ambiguous drawing...
One interpretation may seem more natural...
But to really see what is going on...
Is to see the validity in both ways of looking at it.
(That is me - not Dennett.)I will write more on what you said (specifically about the Bhuddist notion of the self)... But I'll need some time to think on it.
Thanks for getting me thinking :-)
Posted by cricket on August 3, 2005, at 20:57:55
In reply to Re: Lost - Long » cricket, posted by alexandra_k on August 3, 2005, at 16:44:59
> I really want to answer but I really can't at the mo...
>
> Give me a week???Yes, me too in response to some of your thoughts.
I also want to ask my therapist next week. This is the sort of thing he is very good at.
Hopefully, I remember. Sometimes if I want to ask something, it's the very last thing I can ask.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.