CHAPTER TWO -- G

Arthur M. Jackson

Copyright 2001, 2003, 2006

THE "I" (Continued)

.

It is clear that the "I" is neither unitary nor permanent. But if the "I" is not unitary and permanent, what has led societies worldwide, throughout history to believe that it is? Why is it not recognized as composite and changing? Part of the answer is that an eternal, unchanging "I" is congruent with the supernatural foundations which support all current societies. There is a short term, emotional benefit in thinking of the "I" as permanent and unitary. Another part of the answer lies in the fact that it feels like one's "I" is permanent and unitary. All adults share the experience of growing from infancy into maturity, seeing all parts of themself change, and yet feeling identification with each stage of their previous being. Since each new "I" incorporates in one way or another every earlier "I," that identity seems very natural. "I" was a child, but "I" grew up. "I" couldn't read, but now "I" can. "I" used to have two legs, but one of them got crushed in the accident. Etc.

If one can experience that identification over such a range of change it seems a small step to suppose that some essential element of one's being can even survive the death of the body. The error of this approach lies in failing to understand that the "I" one feels is not a physical reality (nor, a supernatural reality), but a mental construct (a collection of interlocking memes). Since it isn't physically real it is open to infinite interpretation and flexibility. The real "I" is a many-faceted, multi-dimensional complex consisting of "hardware" (the totality of the body) and "software"/"files" (rules, strategies, patterns, knowledge, understanding, beliefs, values, etc). The "I" does not reside in any one place in the body, but is one's totality as of any moment. However, some components are more critical than others.

To have a unitary "I" would require that the "I" be unaffected by the forces acting on the body. Some people accept the foregoing idea. People know that an arm may be removed and the "I" remains. But what has not been considered thoroughly enough is how the "before I" compares with the "after I." Is it the same "I"? One need only observe such persons to know that it is not. Picture the sports car driver who lives to race. They lose an arm and commit suicide thereafter. The "old I" had not yet adopted to the "new I." On the other hand, take the person who proclaims, "I would rather die than be blind." They lose their eyesight and through training and support find they can live a full life without being able to see. Their "new I" replaces their "old I." One can see that the "I" which is said to be independent of the body is hopelessly a result of an individual's physical being, their experiences, their knowledge, how well their various organs are functioning, and the other forces acting upon the physical body.

Here is another example: "I...[asked] if her injury had caused major changes in her life. Suddenly this composed, quiet woman, who had sat through her treatment almost in total silence, sobbed and sobbed. She told me that the high point of her life was playing the organ for her church choir. She lived for the twice-a-week practices and Sunday performances. Now, with pain immobilizing her elbow, she could no longer manage the keyboard. Her days held nothing that she looked forward to. The constant aching had robbed her of any hope. Life seemed empty of everything except pain." [26]

[p. 2]

When a person's attributes change and their "new I" is in conflict with who they thought they were this becomes a problem for them, e.g., during puberty, serious injury, etc. This woman had achieved a feeling that her life had meaning through her ability to play the organ and experience the joy of accomplishment and intimacy this allowed. Her "new I" could not play the organ so her feeling that her life had meaning began to disappear. In an Enlightened Community or one attempting to move in that direction support would be provided for individuals such as the ex-organ player to help them deal with such problems and move toward a sustainable belief that their life has meaning.

At another level one might see the ex-organ player as representing a challenge and an area of responsibility for a Center for the Practical Application of Wisdom (CPAW). These persons require existential help. A CPAW would need to provide that help. As more effective services are developed, and become available to more and more persons (CPAWs) will become of greater and greater value. As CPAWs grow in relevance, they will grow in size, support, and visibility. In my mind this is how a Science of Ethics will become ever more important in the modern world. To the degree that CPAWs have structures to provide the searching person with better choices it could attract and assist these persons. Ideally, these persons would then be helped to move in the direction of becoming their own best self.

Let us use the above case of the organ player as an example. She might be involved in a chronic pain eradication group and work with others to learn how to understand pain and how to abolish or at least reduce it. She might be pointed toward more serious and deeper aspects of her potential as a result of becoming a victim of chronic pain. Of course what this woman experienced might result from any occurence that pushes an individual out of the humdrum rut of their unexamined life.

However, even though an "I" changes, there is still the reality of one's feeling of continuity. The Spanish-speaking, twenty-five-year-old individual feels identity with the little child who learned that language from her or his parents. The "I" normally changes so slowly that one does not recognize that any change is taking place. Nevertheless, in reality every adult has been exposed at least once to the experience of actually feeling their "I" shift when they were mature enough to remember the experience. That universal experience is puberty. During puberty, the changes are so dramatic and so rapid that the individual often can actually experience a transition in their "I." Sometimes there is even the feeling of loss of identity. Since current societies do not have the symbols to properly discuss or interpret this experience, its actual significance is universally lost. Everyone agrees the person has changed from a child into an adult. But somehow all this has happened without changing one's "I" (since, "it doesn't change!") One remembers the anxiety, confusion, and other emotions, and totally misses the core of this experience -- the shift of one's identity. However, the "I" has changed and this shift of identity demonstrates that not only can't the "I" transcend death, it can't even transcend puberty!

Therefore, what puberty and other traumatic experiences actually provide is a window through which one can see how the "I" works. At these difficult times change takes place so rapidly that there is often a feeling of fragmentation such that the person does not know who they are. Organ transplant is another example of a traumatic event that may have a major impact on the "I." Just being confined in a hospital can change the "I" in important ways. Where a person has felt invincible and immortal this experience may put them in touch with their mortality and vulnerability. When an organ transplant is involved -- heart, kidney, etc. -- there is the potential for even greater change in the "I." Where the culture teaches that the "I" is unchanging one may not be prepared for the trauma these changes produce. Another example is "mental illness." Much of what is labeled as "mental illness" may actually be a period of rapid transformation of the "I," and the disorienting effects of this transition.

[p. 3]

It is clear that the "I" is not independent from the things that go on around it because they are constantly altering it. Light, sound, touch; all these things change the "I." Things as minor as marks on paper can change the "I" in major ways. There are so many subtle forces that effect this "I" and produce tremendous change, that it is easy to see why studying the "I" is so difficult. Even the experience of Christian fundamentalists being "reborn" is an example of this change, and actually a useful model to develop. This kind of mental/emotional change is what many persons working to become Enlightened Persons would experience.

It seems reasonable to believe that every atom in a person's body could be exchanged for another identical one and the individual would neither lose identity nor form. (This is admittedly idle conjecture because the means do not exist to perform such a difficult task, and probably never will. But if it were able to be done a person could then be duplicated or transported over vast distances at the speed of light!) However, if the foregoing ideas are true then it is the unique arrangement and relationship of components and structures that must be what is responsible for a person's individuality. Change the unique relationship and you have changed the individual. And yet, "We are not today what we were a year ago, yesterday, or even an hour ago; we shall be different one hour from now, tomorrow, and next year from what we are this moment. Certain aspects persist as habitual attitudes, others are less stable; but either stability or volatility indicates only varying degrees of persistence and change. The basic factor of change permeates the entire individual."[27]

The "I" is effected, and forged by stimuli transmitted from the sense organs and the resulting interpretations, reasoning, and choices that are made. The "I" interprets these stimuli and makes choices, but only within the framework of its assumptions and physical structure. However, as has been said before the "I" is too complex to be easily understood. The true dimensions of the "I" are just beginning to be recognized. Only with much research and analysis by seminal thinkers will it be able to really be understood.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear even at this point that the real "I" is a composite. But what are the actual components of the "I"? This has been discussed generally above. Another way to explore this term is to look at the ways it is used: "I am hungry." "I am going to kiss you." "I think murder is wrong." "I have black hair." "I am in love." "I can ride a bicycle." Probably all of these are examples of "selfing"; i.e., thinking of one part of the "I" as the whole self. Here one is actually looking at some of the different facets of the "I." However, each of these represents only a narrow aspect of the "I." None are the complete "I." The real "I" is the sum total of all these things and everything else that can be accurately said about the individual. At a given time there must be only one "I" for any individual.

One major component of the "I" is a person's consciousness. But what is awareness?[28] Frequently, this awareness is taken as actually being the "I." Also, it is often taken as being unique to humanity. However, why should one think other organisms lack consciousness? It would be very premature to draw such a conclusion since our current knowledge is so limited. In reality, all organisms could have this awareness.[29] In fact it is my position that consciousness is necessary whenever a choice is made by any organism; that is, whenever a decision is not hard-wired and/or automatic. When more than one input and/or memory must be utilized to make the choice, I believe, consciousness is evolution's way to make this possible. I think, that as computers move beyond the "earthworm" stage and begin to utilize neural nets and other components so that genuine choices can be made that they will begin to experience consciousness "naturally." This consciousness will expand as their ability to manipulate choices increases. And their reference system (i.e., Computer as the Ultimate Reference System) will be quite different from that utilized by human beings!

[p. 4]

"Common sense" tells us that one's "I" is their awareness of their own being. However, as usual common sense is wrong. One's "I" is more than awareness. One accepts ownership not only of the conscious decision to walk around the block, but also of the involuntary reaction of withdrawing one's hand from a hot stove.

An evidence that one's "I" is more than their awareness is given by hypnosis. Subjects of post-hypnotic suggestion are either unable to give a reason for this behavior, or are entirely wrong in the reason they give. The foregoing occurs because their conscious mind is not aware of the correct reason. If the subconscious can cause one's actions that are subsequently unexplainable to or mis-explained by the conscious part of the mind, the "I" must then be more than our awareness. Numerous brain studies add other dimensions to the foregoing.[30]

Looking at the phenomenon of the multiple personality helps to further clarify issues. Apparently the human brain under certain circumstances can generate more than one "consciousness." There probably are some persons willing to propose that there are as many "persons" as there are consciousnesses that exist in one brain. However, I think, the better answer is that there is only one "I" of which these different personality constructs are a part. Current psychological studies seem to suggest that childhood sexual abuse is a key factor involved in producing multiple personalities. That may be basically true, but I think the issues are bigger than this. My best thinking at this time is that the bulk of humanity has multiple personalities! In ways not yet well understood different memories, etc. are suppressed and isolated from normal awareness. These isolated areas may have their own awareness that "takes over" at different times for almost everyone and is not recognized as being a different personality. To the degree that one compartmentalizes their thinking to this degree may these multiple personalities exist even in "ordinary" people?

Psychoanalysts demonstrate other evidence that indicates that many if not all human actions depend upon that part of our being which Freud labeled the subconscious. As the following indicates Freud was actually trying to solve the problem of the "I" when he wrote about the various parts of the mind which we call "ego," "super-ego," and "id." In trying to determine the different aspects of brain function and how they influence an individual's actions and reactions, he clearly was working to develop a model that would describe the nature of a human being. And the foregoing is born out by Kabat-Zinn[31] who writes, "...when Freud was translated into English, he referred to what we call the 'ego' as 'das Ich,' meaning simply 'the I.' 'The I' got translated into this highfalutin idea of 'ego,' which we then made into a separate thing."

It seems to me that study of Siamese twins might provide some additional help in understanding this matter. Because different sets of twins are joined in all kinds of different ways, they are part of each other's "I" in many different ways. Perhaps, a thorough study of such persons would help to clarify some elements of the "I."

Another major component of the "I" is a person's knowledge/ideas/ beliefs/faith. All observation shows that one's beliefs, etc. change and can change dramatically. But it is still possible (easy!) using current ideas of the "I" to think of it as constant while at the same time thinking of it as being one's knowledge/ ideas/ beliefs/ faith. Such is the kind of confusion permitted by current thinking about the "I." Using the ideas presented here will avoid such confusion. However, to reach these deeper levels of understanding one must recognize that not only are one's knowledge/ ideas/ beliefs/ faith (K/I/B/F) major components of one's "I" that constantly change, but that each of these things are tied in a fundamental way to one's society.

[p. 5]

The degree to which a person is able to overcome their raw "tribal" propensities and develop their "wisdom" potential depends to a great extent on the knowledge/ideas/beliefs/faith of their community. It is in community that one learns language and becomes literate, is provided with the experiences out of which they assemble a worldview, is furnished the educational tools that help them to increase their knowledge, etc. It is in community that one learns, adopts, or rejects K/I/B/F. Community is the individual's fundamental source of information. The further one's society is from being an Enlightened Community, the more difficult the individual's growth and development will be.

In addition, the further the society's K/I/B/F is from being congruent with the real world -- and fails to support humanity's efforts to redefine itself so as to achieve its "wisdom" potential -- the more incongruencies must be produced in the members of the community. Their worldview cannot be in harmony with reality and becoming their best self. This lack of congruency exists in every society today and has throughout history. When individuals recognize this lack of congruency they have two choices. They must either choose to accept the incongruencies as the way things are, or to work to find congruency. They may accept incongruency by thinking this is the way the universe is (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). Or, they might just ignore it (people who accept the supernatural). Or, they might laugh it away (e.g., "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.") If persons overcome all the barriers and decide to work to achieve congruency their great challenge is, How?

For me the path toward congruency is clear. One must surround oneself with the best people one is able to connect with. These are people who share a desire to understand and who are willing to develop the tools to achieve that goal. The next step is to find a foundation upon which to stand as one searches for congruency. I have proposed that this foundation is the "meaning of human life." When properly formulated this concept provides an organizing principle for Science of Ethics. It also provides a spotlight to illuminate the path one must follow in order to achieve congruency. I think, this path must lead toward the Enlightened Community made up of Enlightened Persons, and the nature of both becomes clearer as one pursues THE WAYS OF WISDOM.

Some persons might wonder whether or not there are some potential dangers in the concept of the "I" as presented in this analysis. Part of the reason past societies have been attracted to the unitary, unchanging model of the "I" is that it appears to be easier to work with than a multi-component "I" whose parts are constantly changing. A changing "I" is more slippery. How can a person be held accountable for their behavior if they are always changing? If the "I" is always changing why shouldn't one go for immediate gratification and let a future "I" suffer the consequences? Why should one sacrifice, or endure suffering today for bigger rewards in the future? ("I" suffer now. A future "I" reaps the rewards.) More to the point, if one gives up the symbol of permanency (which at its most extreme says, "I" will transcend death), How can a society be established that develops goals and plans for working to achieve them? In my model of the "I" where does social responsibility come from? What about honest, hard work, keeping a promise, long range planning, concern for the well being of one's community and the species?

To me the answers are clear and positive. The "I" is altered from second to second. A person can change dramatically and almost infinitely. But at the practical level the change is normally so small that statistically one really is the same "I." One is 99.9% the same from month to month. And, this is true throughout one's life. But more important, if the best way to live one's life is to achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning, each of one's activities are not only what is best for one right now (one's "current I"), but what is best for one tomorrow (for one's "new I"). All of one's changes help them become a better person. One is not only better for oneself -- now and in the future -- but better for all other people, better for society.

[p. 6]

Recognizing clearly and explicitly that the "I" changes, helps to clarify society's role in this process. Society's role is not to punish or bully, but to educate and nurture. The goal of an Enlightened Community is to do everything possible to help each person become their best self, to achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning. An Enlightened Community does not easily ask its members to sacrifice their lives either by dying or by living as a zombie, brute, or grossly deprived person. War is not accepted as just another way to solve international problems. Peace and organizations to produce social harmony on a global basis must be the goal. Work that is dangerous, boring, difficult must have equivalent personal rewards that move one toward a sustainable belief that their life has meaning. Part of this might be achieved by reducing such work to the minimum, possibly by distributing it among everyone. Persons doing such work need to be highly rewarded.

However, the foregoing may have become more difficult due to recent economic changes going on in the world. If Robert Reich is correct in his model presented in THE FUTURE OF SUCCESS (see Vol. II, Chapter 34-A) the move from mass production to small scale production and businesses may hamper achievements in reducing work hours as incomes increase. Modern technology and globalization in the form of “faster, better, cheaper” may drive individuals to make their work the focus of their life thereby making it more difficult to achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning.

The culture of the society (its music, art, sophistication) must not be maintained by the enforced sacrifices of "the masses." Each person should have a chance to share in the pain and share in the resulting rewards. In an Enlightened Community all persons would work together to help each other. In addition it must be recognized that pain is part of life. As indicated by the Seventh Way of Wisdom [32], pain is not something to totally eliminate from life.

Also, risk-taking is part of the life process, too. Particularly for some persons, dangerous work may provide the essential zest to keep them functioning at the necessary level for their own well being. Death, hurt, and neglect can always happen -- possibly even senseless, premeditated killing. However, in an Enlightened Community the foregoing experiences would exist as rare exceptions. When they occur social energy would be directed toward reducing the negative consequences as well as understanding them and preventing recurrences. Prevention would be undertaken not by putting every wild person into a padded cell, but by finding ways to channel that boisterous enthusiasm so as to be valuable to one's self and to society.

Understanding the "I" gives a Science of Ethics ways to aid more and more individuals develop their maximum positive potential. This understanding makes clearer what kinds of societies are needed, and how to build them. In addition this view of the "I" presents a very optimistic and hopeful model upon which to develop Enlightened Persons and Enlightened Communities. It implies that living a full and happy life is not difficult, it is simple. It points out that people have the potential for almost infinite change, growth, development. It embraces the use of knowledge to help people change in positive and constructive ways, to become their best "I."

.

.

.