Self is not Substantial
If the self does not have substance, is it possible to assert autonomy and responsibility, free will and intentionality?
To discuss this question, just as Searle pointed out in his book, Mind, Language, and Society, we have to re-think of the so-called mind/body problem. The problem is the ever-discussed issues throughout the history of Western philosophy such as whether or not mind is substantial; whether or not mind can be reduced into the physiological substances, etc. and if these binary questions – which side we should rely on so as to understand the core of our existence and the world where we live. And in such dichotomy between mind and body, we have to face a kind of dilemma:
If mind is the core of our existence and its reality is internally rested and cannot be tangible, then our true existence is a kind of spiritual or epiphenomenal and our bodily dimension is just what should be ignored. Or on the other side, if body is the basis of our core existence, then it is inevitable that we tend to have the materialistic stance or that we should not rely on anything conceptual – what we can trust is something visible and tangible. Unconsciously or consciously the basic attitude of logical positivistic and quantitative approaches may have such kind of tendency. They call the dimension of mind "the ghost of the machine." Thus, it is no wonder that such stance can never discuss the so-called dimensions of soul and spirit.
The attitude to enforce the body side was the source of natural sciences and their logical positivistic methodologies, while the attitude to enforce the mind side was the basis to cultivate the human sciences such as aesthetics, ethics, religions and some part of psychologies. Social sciences have been located ever since between both sides and have been suffered by the dilemma or ambivalence whether their methodologies should be qualitative and quantitative.
Incidentally, it seems that both mathematics and logics stand in a certain unique position that is limited in the dimension of mind only. The mathematical truth, while it is imaginable in our mind, can be never (in the strictly mathematical sense) existed in our physical world. For example, the figure of perfect triangle can never exist in our physical world, while the image or the concept of this figure can be retained in our mind as the result of a logical construction and of an intuitive esthetic sense. Or, the concept of "infinite" is not what is touched in our physical world, but it is one of the indispensable and quite basic ideas of our mind. The mathematical and logical articulation of the world is compatible in the methodology of natural sciences. And it is a kind of trans-cultural tendency to objectify the worldly phenomena; such value-free explanations can be one of the most convenient and of course pragmatically useful medium of articulations in the modern world. In short, both mathematics and logics are the basic meat of the quantitative approaches. Then, some other articulations have tended to be ignored in the modern world, which are mythical explanations, aesthetic explanations, and religious explanations of the world, etc.
The discussion on the mind/body problem has over-simplified the way how we understand the world around us. This discussion has divided it only into what we can see and what we cannot see. But, the way we understand the world is not that simple. This is not that simple like whether or not God can be seen. Rather, the way we understand the world around us has the multiple dimensions from matter, to body to mind (and if you agree) to soul and spirit. Each dimension has its unique way of understanding the world around us. It is not that one single dimension is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. All of them are somewhat complementary. And if you agree, it is said that there is an evolutional include and transcend hierarchy from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. It is not that the way of understanding the world should be either mind or body, but it is rather that the way should be from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Knowing this fact, we can see how we have been too much simplified the ontological, epistemological issues on the world.
Using this multiple dimensional approaches, then, we can transcend the ever-lasting methodological arguments. For example, most of the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, etc. are under the dimension of matter. Or, more strictly the dimension of mind that focuses on that of matter is the approach of natural sciences. And the medical sciences and biology etc. is the dimension of mind that focuses on that of body. In short, we can say that scientific attitude is rested on the dimension of mind that tries to articulate the other dimension in its own way. Probably it is also possible that the dimension of mind tries to articulate that of soul and spirit and such approaches can be called the study of religions, some of psychologies, and ethics, etc. When we simply feel or understand "beauty," such sense of beauty can be differed depending on each dimension – it may be the physical-sensory perception (body), the mathematical intuition (mind), the perfect ethical reconciliation (soul), or the mythical reunion of the transcendence (spirit).
Considering the discussion above, then, how can we clarify the definition of self in the present context? As we also discussed in the previous questions, the sense of self is uniquely held by the humans because only we humans can have the sophisticated communicative tools called symbols, especially language. By using these symbols, we can have the reflexivity that can reflect on our own reflections and in doing so we can have our own consciousness in which the sense of self can be emerged. As mentioned above, we do not have to be bothered by the question whether or not such consciousness is substantial or not – whether it is the ghost of the machine or not. It may be the "ghost," but this ghost is realistic enough to support even the existence the machine that it comes from. Both are necessary but not either the ghost or the machine. And being or becoming either of them is not enough. Only if and when both (moreover, the multiple perspectives) of the ghost/machine can be recognized, then the very integration of the existential entity can be fulfilled.
Also as we have discussed already, social reality is constructed in our mind and more totally our consciousness that contains the multiple dimensions. Such social reality is also regard as the institutional facts that are based on our institutional knowledge. In the level of matter, the knowledge is based on the non-agentive functions. As the levels of each dimension are inclusively evolved, the "mode" of such institutional knowledge is also transformed.
For example, water is just naturally given water in the level of matter; the mode of its knowledge can be transformed into the coldness of water or the sound of water in the level of body. In the level of mind if it focuses on the matter level, it can provide the knowledge of chemistry – water is called H2O. In the level of soul if it focuses on the body level, a certain ethico-aesthetic values can be articulated based on the flow of water. When you meditate in front of river and that river can give you a certain profound insightful wisdom, your understanding on the water that is filled and flowed in the river is done in the dimension of soul or even spirit. In any case, what is important is all levels are necessary in one way or another. In one single level we can never achieve the full understanding of the world around us including our own selves.
In the materialistic understanding of the world we tend to forget the fact that the world we experience is institutionally constructed and because of that the world is located in our consciousness. Then, we tend to think the world is just given as it is as the natural object in front of us; hence we tend to think that the world is what we can control or can be controlled just like a sculpture curves a piece of wood. We tend to think the world is outside us. It might be partially true, but the social fact in which we really understand the values of the world is indeed institutionally constructed by our consciousness. Such values of the social fact are heavily relied on our institutional knowledge, which is what we are sometimes not aware of.
In this situation we tend to have the so-called double deceptions. The first deception is that we think the world is outside us and only materialistically shows the reality, so that the self (which is considered as useless in this materialistic setup) and its free will and responsibility have been neglected. The second deception is that since the world is outside us, the way we can influence the world is the direct subject-object relation only – controlling or controlled and the fact that the world is actually institutionally constructed in our language use is neglected too. The way we can really influence the world is not the way that one control the other that is in front of one. But the way that one can be aware of one's institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in one's mind.
Thus, even though self is not substantial, which is not important to see whether or not self can have its free will, responsibility and intentionally. Rather, what is important is that first we have to be aware of the fact that self is not substantial and then paradoxically that is the necessary condition that self is the important factor to recognize that the social fact is institutionally constructed. Only in this recognition self can influence the world not through the controlling/controlled materialistic way, but through continuous reflexivity that can expose our taken for granted institutional knowledge.
To discuss this question, just as Searle pointed out in his book, Mind, Language, and Society, we have to re-think of the so-called mind/body problem. The problem is the ever-discussed issues throughout the history of Western philosophy such as whether or not mind is substantial; whether or not mind can be reduced into the physiological substances, etc. and if these binary questions – which side we should rely on so as to understand the core of our existence and the world where we live. And in such dichotomy between mind and body, we have to face a kind of dilemma:
If mind is the core of our existence and its reality is internally rested and cannot be tangible, then our true existence is a kind of spiritual or epiphenomenal and our bodily dimension is just what should be ignored. Or on the other side, if body is the basis of our core existence, then it is inevitable that we tend to have the materialistic stance or that we should not rely on anything conceptual – what we can trust is something visible and tangible. Unconsciously or consciously the basic attitude of logical positivistic and quantitative approaches may have such kind of tendency. They call the dimension of mind "the ghost of the machine." Thus, it is no wonder that such stance can never discuss the so-called dimensions of soul and spirit.
The attitude to enforce the body side was the source of natural sciences and their logical positivistic methodologies, while the attitude to enforce the mind side was the basis to cultivate the human sciences such as aesthetics, ethics, religions and some part of psychologies. Social sciences have been located ever since between both sides and have been suffered by the dilemma or ambivalence whether their methodologies should be qualitative and quantitative.
Incidentally, it seems that both mathematics and logics stand in a certain unique position that is limited in the dimension of mind only. The mathematical truth, while it is imaginable in our mind, can be never (in the strictly mathematical sense) existed in our physical world. For example, the figure of perfect triangle can never exist in our physical world, while the image or the concept of this figure can be retained in our mind as the result of a logical construction and of an intuitive esthetic sense. Or, the concept of "infinite" is not what is touched in our physical world, but it is one of the indispensable and quite basic ideas of our mind. The mathematical and logical articulation of the world is compatible in the methodology of natural sciences. And it is a kind of trans-cultural tendency to objectify the worldly phenomena; such value-free explanations can be one of the most convenient and of course pragmatically useful medium of articulations in the modern world. In short, both mathematics and logics are the basic meat of the quantitative approaches. Then, some other articulations have tended to be ignored in the modern world, which are mythical explanations, aesthetic explanations, and religious explanations of the world, etc.
The discussion on the mind/body problem has over-simplified the way how we understand the world around us. This discussion has divided it only into what we can see and what we cannot see. But, the way we understand the world is not that simple. This is not that simple like whether or not God can be seen. Rather, the way we understand the world around us has the multiple dimensions from matter, to body to mind (and if you agree) to soul and spirit. Each dimension has its unique way of understanding the world around us. It is not that one single dimension is absolutely right and the others are absolutely wrong. All of them are somewhat complementary. And if you agree, it is said that there is an evolutional include and transcend hierarchy from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. It is not that the way of understanding the world should be either mind or body, but it is rather that the way should be from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Knowing this fact, we can see how we have been too much simplified the ontological, epistemological issues on the world.
Using this multiple dimensional approaches, then, we can transcend the ever-lasting methodological arguments. For example, most of the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, etc. are under the dimension of matter. Or, more strictly the dimension of mind that focuses on that of matter is the approach of natural sciences. And the medical sciences and biology etc. is the dimension of mind that focuses on that of body. In short, we can say that scientific attitude is rested on the dimension of mind that tries to articulate the other dimension in its own way. Probably it is also possible that the dimension of mind tries to articulate that of soul and spirit and such approaches can be called the study of religions, some of psychologies, and ethics, etc. When we simply feel or understand "beauty," such sense of beauty can be differed depending on each dimension – it may be the physical-sensory perception (body), the mathematical intuition (mind), the perfect ethical reconciliation (soul), or the mythical reunion of the transcendence (spirit).
Considering the discussion above, then, how can we clarify the definition of self in the present context? As we also discussed in the previous questions, the sense of self is uniquely held by the humans because only we humans can have the sophisticated communicative tools called symbols, especially language. By using these symbols, we can have the reflexivity that can reflect on our own reflections and in doing so we can have our own consciousness in which the sense of self can be emerged. As mentioned above, we do not have to be bothered by the question whether or not such consciousness is substantial or not – whether it is the ghost of the machine or not. It may be the "ghost," but this ghost is realistic enough to support even the existence the machine that it comes from. Both are necessary but not either the ghost or the machine. And being or becoming either of them is not enough. Only if and when both (moreover, the multiple perspectives) of the ghost/machine can be recognized, then the very integration of the existential entity can be fulfilled.
Also as we have discussed already, social reality is constructed in our mind and more totally our consciousness that contains the multiple dimensions. Such social reality is also regard as the institutional facts that are based on our institutional knowledge. In the level of matter, the knowledge is based on the non-agentive functions. As the levels of each dimension are inclusively evolved, the "mode" of such institutional knowledge is also transformed.
For example, water is just naturally given water in the level of matter; the mode of its knowledge can be transformed into the coldness of water or the sound of water in the level of body. In the level of mind if it focuses on the matter level, it can provide the knowledge of chemistry – water is called H2O. In the level of soul if it focuses on the body level, a certain ethico-aesthetic values can be articulated based on the flow of water. When you meditate in front of river and that river can give you a certain profound insightful wisdom, your understanding on the water that is filled and flowed in the river is done in the dimension of soul or even spirit. In any case, what is important is all levels are necessary in one way or another. In one single level we can never achieve the full understanding of the world around us including our own selves.
In the materialistic understanding of the world we tend to forget the fact that the world we experience is institutionally constructed and because of that the world is located in our consciousness. Then, we tend to think the world is just given as it is as the natural object in front of us; hence we tend to think that the world is what we can control or can be controlled just like a sculpture curves a piece of wood. We tend to think the world is outside us. It might be partially true, but the social fact in which we really understand the values of the world is indeed institutionally constructed by our consciousness. Such values of the social fact are heavily relied on our institutional knowledge, which is what we are sometimes not aware of.
In this situation we tend to have the so-called double deceptions. The first deception is that we think the world is outside us and only materialistically shows the reality, so that the self (which is considered as useless in this materialistic setup) and its free will and responsibility have been neglected. The second deception is that since the world is outside us, the way we can influence the world is the direct subject-object relation only – controlling or controlled and the fact that the world is actually institutionally constructed in our language use is neglected too. The way we can really influence the world is not the way that one control the other that is in front of one. But the way that one can be aware of one's institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in one's mind.
Thus, even though self is not substantial, which is not important to see whether or not self can have its free will, responsibility and intentionally. Rather, what is important is that first we have to be aware of the fact that self is not substantial and then paradoxically that is the necessary condition that self is the important factor to recognize that the social fact is institutionally constructed. Only in this recognition self can influence the world not through the controlling/controlled materialistic way, but through continuous reflexivity that can expose our taken for granted institutional knowledge.
Comments