X-Message-Number: 10992
From:
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:15:38 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Self-esteem et al
In Message #10981, Timur Rozenfeld wrote:
>
>As for self-esteem, I don't really understand what problems you have with
>it.
For an in-depth explanation please read any of the more professionally-oriented
books by Albert
Ellis (which are numerous and widespread) but especially IS OBJECTIVISM A
RELIGION? as this
particular book was the result of a public debate on this issue between Ellis
and Nathaniel
Brandon.
Self-esteem, in essence, is an unnecessary mental step - a self-EVALUATION which
I see as
directly causitive in most neurotic human behavior. Again, for numerous details
and examples,
see Ellis. For a small partial treatment, read on.
>> (George Smith:)If you cease to identify with your experiences (actions,
emotions,
>thoughts, etc.), then this
>> enables the free and emotionally unfettered use of and understanding of
>same in direct
>> proportion.
>
>(Timor Rozenfeld:) I don't understand what you mean by the above.
People say (and believe) they ARE their occupations ("I AM a doctor, lawyer,
etc") which are
ACTIONS (processes) not IDENTITIES.
People say and believe they ARE their current emotions ("I AM a jealous, angry,
happy, etc.
person) which are PASSING FEELINGS (processes of psycho-somatic sensation) not
IDENTITIES.
People say (and believe) they ARE their thoughts (especially opinions) the best
classical
example coming from Descartes' "I think therefore I am", while thoughts are
MENTAL PROCESSES and
not IDENTITIES.
To identify with any experience requires a mental step of (in essence) declaring
to oneself I AM
...followed by the process in question with which one identifies.
Once identified with said process, any criticism of it is easily perceived as an
"attack" on YOU
(as "you" chose to identify with that process).
For example, people who study Egyptology long enough and secure jobs in that
field usually
IDENTIFY with BEING "Egyptologists". When people doing geology (who themselves
"Geologists")
declared that the Sphinx was worn by rain, and rain had not fallen in Egypt for
9,000 years and
therefore the Sphinx had to be at least 9,000 years old, "Egyptologists"
declared that these
facts COULD NOT be correct because it did not match THEIR belief "as"
"Egyptologists" that the
Sphinx was constructed NO MORE than 6,000 years ago. Thus we see another
example of otherwise
intelligent minds stopped dead in their tracks due to false identifications, in
this example
individuals identifying with a body of previous research to the exclusion of the
examination of
new information - AND from a group with which they are NOT identified:
geologists.
>
>> (George Smith:) I personally think the "experiencer" is a mental illusion and
can be very
>successfully lived
>> WITHOUT. In fact FAR more successfully!
>
>(Timur Rozenfeld:) You talk about illusion. But before you identify something
is illusion, you
>must have identified something as reality. Illusion means non-real, so you
>first have to know the real. We experience things every second of our lives
>yet you claim that is an illusion. By what means have you arrived at this
>conclusion?
>
If I know the magician was hiding the coin in his hand and it really didn't
"vanish", I don't
need to prove anything about the reality of the coin. I only need to know that
believing the
coin vanished was an illusion. What I thought was so, wasn't so.
I did NOT say that EXPERIENCE is an illusion. (I DO suspect the EXPERIENCER to
be a mental
illusion).
I am suggesting that YOU as the experiencer cannot BE the experience. If you
believe that you
ARE what you experience, I am suggesting that THAT is an illusion. It is
popular and reinforced
by language syntax (the exception being the English subset know as E-Prime which
lacks the verb
"to be") but is nevertheless an illusion.
You are not what you do, feel, think or "own". This is easily demonstrated.
The experiencer is not the experience. When people identify with their
experiences, they tend
to defend these identifications rather than just use them. This inhibits clear
thinking and
stunts decision-making as well as technological progress in general.
Mike Perry wrote under "Subject: Self, Non-Self":
>George Smith (#10979) writes,
>
>>I personally think the "experiencer" is a mental illusion and can be very
>>successfully lived
>>WITHOUT. In fact FAR more successfully!
>
>This sounds very much like the doctrine of "non-self" that is prevalent in
>Eastern traditions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
What I am suggesting is rather difficult at first but should not be identified
with any known
religion or philosophy. I have found the basics in Albert Ellis' work and a few
others, but
usually not many clear examples outside of psychology.
I am remaining very firmly grounded in the demonstrable fact that in any honest
search for "the
self" you cannot find "it" in any experience. Take any experience and you can
ask "yourself"
"Can I know about this exerience?" If the answer is "Yes", then IF there "is"
an experiencer
you call "you", quite clearly there is "you" (the experiencer) and "it" (the
experience). This
can be applied to any "external" experiences (the physical universe) and any
"internal"
experiences (thoughts, memories, dreams, etc.).
When someone drops identification with something he gains emotional freedom from
defending its
qualities.
For example, if I stop identifying with BEING an Egyptologist, and instead
recognize I am
"doing" Egyptology, I quickly discover I no longer feel emotionally pressured to
"defend" what I
do. Instead I can treat Egyptology as a "tool" in that I can use it, question
it, and even
possibly improve on it.
For example, if I stop identifying with my memories and behavior patterns as
George Smith, and
instead recognize that I am "using" the George Smith personality, I quickly
discover I no longer
feel emotionally pressured to "defend" George Smith. Instead I can treat George
Smith as a
"tool" (actually a bunch of tools) that I can use, question, and even possibly
improve on.
I have found no need to identify with anything in particular but great value in
dropping the
illusion of identifying with many "things" (and processes).
I don't know of any Buddhist
>or Taoist who has signed up for cryonics (does anyone else?). Rejection of
>cryonics is not hard to rationalize based on a doctrine of non-self. Maybe a
>good many of the "no-brainers" who do so are really "non-selfers".
>
I would suggest that if some members of those religions identify with the
"non-self", then THAT
would cause them to emotionally need to defend their religious perspective AND
THIS is what
probably most contributes to their rejection of cryonics.
What I am suggesting is not an affirmation of identity (WHAT or WHO I "really"
"am") but a
recognition of delusion based upon errors in identification (WHAT "I" am NOT).
The classic comic image of the nut who thinks he is Napoleon comes to mind. If
he can come to
see he is NOT Napoleon, I am submitting he is only popularly, culturally "sane".
NOW he needs
to stop believing he is everything else he has been doing as well to become
"more than sane",
the psychological condition I am describing here.
I have also noticed that in each category I have challenged and de-identified
from, I am more
willing to examine it for error. It becomes simple and easy to say, "Maybe I am
wrong" and then
consider what is being presented.
In a world where most people reject cryonics for "reasons" that truly make no
sense at all, it
is useful to consider that they are rigidly identified with the role imposed by
their culture
and are very willing to die rather than seem "odd" to their friends and
neighbors.
I realize these ideas are alien to our culture - but so is "survival sanity" (to
coin a term) as
demonstrated by the near-universal rejection of cryonics.
I feel there is a strong connection which is why I have expressed some of these
ideas here.
-George Smith
"To be successful it is neither WHO you know, nor WHAT you know!
It is WHOM you know."
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10992