The comment goes:
One of the emerging conclusions of neurology is that the idea of a single "true self" must be discarded. We have no indivisible soul; we have multiple systems acting independently, thinking different things -- ... Those systems may be in tension -- base hormones are telling me I want a cookie, even when my frontal cortex is labeling the desire as unwise. Tension demands resolution, but this demand need not be met. Sustained tension can be either productive -- the relation between parts becoming part of a whole self -- or destructive, in which case growth or healing will seek to resolve the tension one way or the other, by making one system ascendant over the competing systems.
To "I think, therefore I am," I respond "I think many things, and therefore am many things."
4 comments:
"I think therefore I am" refers to the "I" thought or the ego. The "I" thought is what gives rise to other thoughts. And yes the "I" exists because the thinking process is on.
The true Self is realized when even the "I" thought vanishes. It is not in the scope of neurology to talk about the Self. One cannot use words to describe or understand something that is experienced by going beyond the word.
OMG! This is a great comment. Haha! I don't read the comments on those articles! Now I think I should. :P
Btw, reading nytimes editorials is something I have recently picked up from you only! So, thanks. :)
Many self theory is one of the many theories that is proposed by psychologists.
At first glance ("I think many things, and therefore am many things") seems so obvious, but upon further scrutiny one may enter a "hallway of mirrors" effect; where one must eventually wonder: who is the ultimate "watcher" underneath it all? Is it all finally reducible to neurological epiphenomena? A trick of border-line rancid fat betwixt the ears? Who (or what) is watching? Who --besides various gurus and self-important neuro-scientists-- really thinks they have a handle on "That?"
Post a Comment