Who has a "Self?"

Post Reply New Topic

I'm really enjoying this topic.

Anyway, I wish I'd read more about this and then I would have something more intellectual to contribute.

I would certainly vote towards the Buddhist concept of self. I have actually discussed my dilemma (my lack of self, worded as my lack of understanding "who I am") with several of my NT friends, and their response has been fairly unanimous in that they haven't got it. They don't actually understand what I'm talking about, and in trying to link it to their understanding of the world, they link it to me just not having a career path yet, or me just needing to "choose one thing and go with it".

Most people that I discuss this concept with say that "I know who I am", and they seem solid on this foundation. I think the idea of it being related to detail and intricate focus is actually a good one, because the self is not one intricate detail, rather it must be an overview of a range of different elements, seen as a concrete whole, and it seems highly likely to me that our intense focus on detail would prevent us from ever seeing our "self". So the question that remains is that do we have actually have a self that we can simply never consciously know of, or does that self not even exist in the first place. I think it was Berkeley that said for an object to truly exist we must be able to perceive it. My interpretation is that in the case of a non-empirical thing such as the self, which only exists according to our internal perception anyway, if we are unable to perceive it then logically it cannot exist.

For to have a self, one must consciously be able to consider that self in its entirety.

so a baby has no self?

when? at 1, 2, 3...?

Perhaps a very young baby is not concerned with itself, only his/her immediate needs and wants (to be fed, feel warm etc.). At this early stage, perhaps the baby is aware that there's a world of sensory perception/times when he she naps only.

Maybe the baby develops an idea of self awareness when he/she recognises for the the image reflected in the mirror is not another baby, but is in fact his/herself.

Perhaps the self isn't static, but is something that develops over time as we grow up.

Maybe the idea of the "self" is socialised into us by our interactions with others. Maybe part of it isn't: is this just a false idea of the self?

When we feel that we have no specific role/purpose in our lives, perhaps the socialised idea of self disintegrates and we're forced to address the question:

"Who am I? What do I want from life?"

When we feel almost as helpless as the infant.

I just wanted to say that I'm exactly the same way. I don't identify with any group. I also feel silly trying to advertise myself in reference to any specific subculture. Maybe I've inadvertently identified with the subculture of this forum, if you can call it that - but I'm sure eventually I'll move on to something else. I have lots in common with 'aspies' but I still don't feel the connotations of that term really mean that much to me. I'm still different even from people here.

I've sometimes wondered if there's a single soul out there among the 6 billion people in existence that bears very close resemblance to me. Something makes me doubt it. I feel really alone, creepy alone. Everyone else seems so similar and I feel vastly different. I've had thoughts where I'm not sure if anyone else ever had the same thought. Maybe it's just an illusion brought on by the intensity loneliness, depression, over-thinking, etc. I'm kind of going off topic here but does anyone else have this kind of existential obsessiveness? I think way too much about this kind of thing and it makes me feel almost insane at times.

Holy %*(&% I can relate to this!

I can remember even at a really young age being transfixed by things that seemed too difficult/embarrassing to even attempt to explain. For instance I've always had this intense love/fascination/appreciation for the specific way a path winds it's way up a mountain. I would try to visualize and memorize every switchback and all the little ridges / gullies the trail followed. The way a road or trail ascends / descends through terrain is like art in my mind. The path it follows is etched in my head as having this sense of perfection. Other times there are scenes I see in nature. Like a giant ball of roots from a tree that's fallen over. Somehow in the moment the scene can strike me as having this same sense of perfection. It's a very specific moment that burns itself into me.

I never thought anyone else ever thought about this kind of stuff, at least not the vast majority. Maybe give those boring people at the table some acid or something and they will appreciate more than just their little social existence. I'm happy I don't need drugs to notice beautiful things outside of social experience.

Yes, I have visualized myself as a sort of kaleidescope that shakes up into a new design every day......in short....I find it hard to 'depend' on myself.

I have been watching this thread for awhile now, and have wanted to add my own experiences to it, but haven't had the time to do so. This is so interesting.

I only have a minute, but I wanted to share something that I just saw on tv before I forget. I was watching a program on BYU about autism, and they were talking about how children with autism don't respond to their name. Typically developing children respond to their name as infants, and they said that is because they have developed a sense of self that is independent from others. They understand that others have their own internal process that is separate. Do you think that part of this that we experience is due to lack of theory of mind?

For example, it's not uncommon for a child/adult to refer to themselves in third person. My son never used the words I, me, or my before he was about 4 in a half. He still gets pronouns mixed up. I still refer to myself as 'we'. I have no idea as to why. It's just more comfortable.

Reading that just hit me in the chest with significance.
I'd read about pronoun confusion being a trait of ASD, and I initially did not identify with it at all.
I thought about it, and really could never see myself mixing up I/you/me/we/he/she/it, etc.
But this last thing you said, about referring to oneself in the third person, suddenly clicked in my mind. I DO THIS.

It was more prevalent when I was a child. While alone, I would carry on extended monologues, speaking aloud to myself as if I was both orator and audience. I said things like "we are going to do this" or "you need to get it together", or some such thing. Two distinct selves. One active, one passive. One speaking, one listening. Oh my god.... I've never really completely realized this before.

Not sure what to say now... this thread is becoming mystical or something.

Why, at the exact moment we are getting somewhere 'surprising' and'never though of that before', would one suddenly call something:

mystical.....?

Unclear, yet to be explained, interesting, no idea whhat to say, allthat&more, but mystical///

this linguistic thing is indeed relevant i believe, however totally surprised it came up, which can only be a sign that we are on a goooooood track

just keep it coming: DOUBT is CREATIVE!! !

my internal talk consists of "you, millie " and " hey millie," and " you need to do this " -- and this is precisely the autistic fragmentation i am talking about. i rarely use "i." and i will also use the third persona fair bit although not all the time. mynephew does the pronoun fluctuation thing a lot and he is autistic as opposed to AS. it is interesting and also significant.
mysticism is frigging good by the way. we ASD people live in a realm that i believe can be highly evolved and beyond space-time.

and yes - it's a bloody good thread if i do say so myself.
we just need glider18 to chip in again too and it will be a buzz.

Last edited by millie on 19 Jan 2009, 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're right. Thank you. I am usually pretty good about my adjectives, but occasionally I use one which does not convey the precise meaning I was seeking to express.

Instead of mystical, how about... transcendent.
Yes, I like that one.

Anyways, I agree. This thread is going somewhere good

i disagree. "mystical" is fine.
"transcendent" is good too.

each leads to slightly different thought processes but that is the fun of it.
the only place i get this level of stimulus is with other ASD people.
nice to know

[sorry alex for this breach of the rules - this is to be a very short membership indeed, an egg once more, there's one thing i haven't tried before: past lives or rebirthing]

my point Millie, Acacia:

transcended, mystical, whatever... Aquarius...

all words carrying so much content, and such vague content at that
and for that reason so negatively charged in worlds where such line of thinking is frowned upon, but which worlds are needed because we are all in ONEWORLD

as the non-scientific need science, science needs to be open to non-science;
that may only mutual, reciprocal exchange by open/undefined labelling

or it is not the partners misunderstanding,
but the tool of exchange itself blocking exchange

the Autism debate is RIDDLED with people at any level simply bypassing each other; 90 % of bloody ToM issues to me seem more to do with simple linguistic CON-FUSION

science must acknowledge wisdom in non-scientific debate
most are NOT stupid; just very intelligent people with too much ego,
filling in the content of their privat, subjective perspective

it does never mean they/anyone is per se WRONG

there is truth everywhere everywhen
there is pervasive stupidity in egocentric projective intelligence


check the meaning of the word ESOTERIC
my intention is to become as non-esoteric, as non-exclusive, as practicle as possible

so:mystical, transcendental...

what is wrong with: interesting, puzzling, enigmatic, ......


PS:
.... 'hm', NN, X y z=a Alpha=Omega, or even 0, for that matter

but my computer got screwed by scripting 0, so that may not be a good idea

Interesting.
This kind of detailed observation would be useful for Physical Geography and the Natural Sciences. The concept of the "self" becomes secondary to any sensory experiences.

It's no coincidence that Geography (the study of the world) is often taught by splitting the subject into two:

-Physical Geography
Natural processes and the physical environment

-Human Geography
Human politics and the man made environment


In the real world, it's very complex of course: humans interact and alter the physical environment and vise versa.

Some of the Human side (people's opinions/points of view) I had to essentially learn by rote. I found some of the discussions relating to human points of view very difficult and exhausting to take part in. Human beings are a fickle lot and you can't seem to please all of them all of the time!

I was definitely more able in the Physical Geography modules.
Some of my old Physical Geography and Science reports read like they were written by an omnipresent being. We were encouraged to use the passive voice to avoid a human bias. Processes "occur" and things are located in places.

"The area is used for pastoral farming."

"An experiment was performed to determine..."

There's no "I" in any of this writing at all. The self has to be temporarily forgotten before one can observe the world. I just found this style of writing so natural because I used to refer to myself in the third person when I was younger and considered myself an observer of the physical world.


Hence, I believe that there are essentially two worlds:

-The Physical World
Which is visible to all five senses: touch, smell, sight, taste, hearing

-The Social/emotional world
Which is invisible and based on how people interpret each other's behaviours and signals psychologically


I believe that some people are just more literate in observing and interpreting one world than the other.

If someone is absent minded with regards to the Physical World, and has a strong social ability, this person can easily get help from/rely on other people to interpret the physical world for them. For instance, a highly social person who's car has broken down can dial for a mechanic/breakdown service.

However, if someone was say absent minded with regards to the Social World, but is highly attuned to observing the Physical World, there can be problems. Someone could for example become so absorbed in studying the local flora that they have missed a angry farmer's facial expression that silently says:

"This is my land and private property, keep out!"

Some people may be equally literate in interpreting both worlds.

more comment on AmberEyes to follow (interesting)
leave that till back under original alter

right now just noting with pleasurable surprise linguistic literalness gettting a deserved mention in this thread that got off on calling on SELF, but departing from fragmentation

i believe that this (autistic) literalness is essentially quite the same
(yet brought to bear in a completely separate subfile in the diagnostic Triad Tree)

it fits with & follows directly from my (earlier stated) view of language as a sense,
and to be thus considered


and on that foot, with things afoot, i ask anyone:
WHY is there is difference between 1. problems in social behaviour, and 2. problems in (language&)communication?
WHAT is the difference between communication and social behaviour

please explain, me just tired&cold litl'ol' oblio, me locked out and stupid

now oblio in both cases i think it is a result of the penchant for particularities and detail. both social language and the self require a pronounced and prevailing homogenous position - a more or less constant vantage point - the "I" for want of a better term. what if "the I" just does not exist in the normal sense? if the "i" exists as fragments, then surely that would have to create some difficulty when one uses language to encompass an over-arching identityhtat everyone tells you should exist, when in fact you know that for you, it does not.

confusions might just arise, because there is no word that actually encompasses the fragmented person........ it is a good point to consider ...is there some kind of symbiotic relationship between the two??

my suspicion is there would be.
if i am parts, then i am going to talk from various parts.

So, if one presents to the world in this manner and uses a language expression and base and vocabulary that does not happily and easily symbolically represent one's state of shifting being, then the language is cobbled togetherby the ASD person in much the same way i talked about in terms of how i have cobbled together different expressions of who millie is.
the paucity of language is such that it is not yet able to accommodate the complexity of the autistic person' experiences and the pronounced nature of these different parts and so the ASD child learning the language is forced to use terminologies that lack both precision and specificity. they are generalised terms also, that see a person as either a "you" or a"he" or "She" or "I." for me, an "I" is a lot more than an "I." A "you" is more likely a collection of body parts and details and words and intonations and expressions which become hard to follow in unison. A 'me" is at once millie, camilla, mummy, body parts, details and shifting vantage points that are related to heightened sensory processing. (this goes further than just "roles.")
to put it clearly - our detail orienced perception of how we are and how we migt perceive everything is not accommodated by the generalised nature of language and vocabulary as it stands.

My point is, i may just reside in the spaces between the words........
i use words, but the complexity of who i am and my tendency for details can only be partially expressed by the language i use. the rest is outside of language and is more akin to the animal world. (intuition, sensory sensitivity etc....)

do i need my own language? well, interesting that many austistic people actually create their own words and phrases and names for people and things. is this an attempt on my part to gain a greater connection and a greater level of intensity between me and my environment? wihtout a doubt. is this an attempt to bridge the gap ( the place where i live and where detail resides) that language does not fill? for me, yes.......

i want to live with my details as much as i can. and maybe that leads me into the ASD person who bypasses verbal expression and uses other means (painting, music, or even poetry where the language is stretched to its limits and even beyond.....)

i have a feeling i am really going to get into wittgenstein in 09.............