|
Post by sammywong on Sept 26, 2013 3:53:55 GMT
The diagnosis is that whether or not Luke has a Self depends on your definition of Self. I will not lie and say I know what Self means. AKA I do not know what Self means. Throughout the novel, Siddhartha's intentions are to find himself. He does so in many ways, all futile attempts. Only when he realizes that Self is not an individual, independent thing does he actually find Self. But what does he find? The same thing Buddha finds. What does Buddha find? I think if we all knew that question to its true, full extent we would have a world full of Illustrious Ones. (That would be SO COOL) This is just a background on why my answer to the forum question is so tentative. In my opinion, I would need to grasp the full sense of Self to answer. Siddhartha does not completely understand what Self is and only until he finds his Self does he understand what I am having a hard time grasping. Maybe I haven't found my own Self yet?
I think Luke has a Self. I think the question more lies on whether or not we realize/understand what that is.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Sept 26, 2013 4:03:03 GMT
I also agree with PJ! If little adorable Luke doesn't have a self now, then when would it just magically appear? Even though he may not fully understand everything that is happening in the big world around him, doesn't mean he isn't consciously making decisions and slowly soaking in the world around him. Everyone is born with a "self" but some take longer to realize it or fully understand it. Siddhartha feels that he doesn't understand his self, which is why he works so hard to discover more in life (eventually leading to his discovery of om). Siddhartha's path of ups and downs shows how finding what your personal self really is, is sometimes a long arduous process. But in the end your self is always there, even when you're an adorable little baby boy.
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Sept 26, 2013 4:10:47 GMT
Suuuuchhh a cutie! Of course, I believe that Luke has a self. Everyone is born with a path and a place in the world- although we're led to believe that we don't. We, daily struggle with the ongoing battle between light and dark, good and evil. I think what PJ said supports this: if we aren't born with a self than when do we "get one". Relating this topic to a worldly matter: the Bible, I would say that ALL babies are born and good. GOD created sex and reproduction to fill our Earth with his beings. We are ALL made to reproduce because in the eyes of the Bible, that is why we're made. GOD does not create anything bad, all his creations are good, and that's why there is a bit of controversy with "self". WE are all given a path in life BUT WE choose which side we take. BUT just because we make ONE choice (daily) does not mean that we develop self... GOD is ever seeing and he knows when we will make a wrong turn because he made us and gave us self. Sidhartha is fully about "self". He searches to lose himself and then find himself. In fact, when he looks hard enough, he realizes it was always there.
I feel like the thing that stuck out to me most in the Text was how Siddhartha really had to struggle, lose his purity and in some cases righteousness, in order to realize he had reached his true potential, it was just hidden by curiosity and repression. I find this is true within a lot of my surrounding peer's personal or religious stories. We hear all the time the "catholic school girl gone rogue" or the "Harvard law kid who sporadically moves to Zambia." These ideas are very complex but no matter, we all have a self to begin with- we just have a hard time with that realization.
|
|
|
Post by gracepark on Sept 26, 2013 4:14:16 GMT
I think self in itself is what makes human human. Self is what characterizes an individual with the traits of human nature. Therefore, I would say Luke has self even though he is only three days old. He’s born with the expectations of human nature that cannot be changed. Yet the question becomes more complicated when we start delving into the deeper definition of self. The big self refers to the center of our very conscious and subconscious. This big self is not touched by any of the natural human characteristics. It is solely molded and shaped by one’s own thoughts and invocations. But as we saw through Siddhartha’s experience with Kamala and Kamaswami, once an individual starts exposing the inner self to the tugs of the outside world, it becomes tarnished and we then see the “lost in self.” Young Luke definitely has not reached that stage where he can nurture his inner self with his own conscious and subconscious. But his very existence in this world proves that he does possess self.
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Sept 26, 2013 4:26:35 GMT
So I think I'm going to... breakdance with just about everyone here by saying that baby Luke doesn't really have a self. At this point in a child's life he/she is essentially a glassy-eyed gelatinous blob. The Jungian definition of "self" is the unification of consciousness and unconsciousness. Self, according to Jung is brought about through individuation. When a human is first brought into the world it is without emotional distinction. The only goal it has in mind is to survive. To find your self you must first be without self. Now, Jung DID say that self is provided at birth, but I tend to disagree. I think that babies are primarily primitive beings. They have no sense of true sentience or existence. Luke must embark on his own journey to find his self much like Siddhartha. Siddhartha found his self through gaining material possessions and promptly giving them up. Luke has yet to even begin to comprehend the idea of personality, or being an individual. I believe to find one's self one must undergo the separation of yourself from society.
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Sept 26, 2013 4:33:11 GMT
First off, Luke is adorable!! Babies get me every time...
Now to the actual question at hand. Upon first thinking about this prompt, I thought that Luke has absolutely no self or sense of it. He is a baby, how does he know his opinions or propose in the world around him? He only knows his immediate surroundings and needs. Luke doesn't have memories, and does not have self-awareness, so how could he have a self? This is idea quickly left me as I thought about our discussion in class. The self, or personal definition of self, is constantly changing. My form of self will not be the same in a couple years, or maybe even a couple days. Who is to say that Luke's self is just in a different stage? His self has not yet gone through the challenges or experiences of life, but it is still a presence to be molded throughout the years. No matter how much I want to cling to the safety blanket of a permanent self, I still have to recognize that everything about myself is in constant reshaping.
After riding this roller coaster of thoughts, I have now concluded on the opposite side of my original idea. Luke has a stronger sense of self than any of us do! As Siddhartha characterized self, it is ones own "passions and desires" (14), and who knows their passions and desires better than a baby? Luke knows what he needs: food, shelter, and love. Do I know what I need or want in life? Heck no. The simplistic world of a child creates the pathway to knowing ones self. All of the challenges of life have molded my "self" to who I am today. However, I am consciously farther away and isolated from what my "self" may really need. Another point we discussed in class is how our definition of self is based off of others, but as a baby, Luke has yet to be influenced or molded permanently. His self is direct and uncomplicated or influenced.
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Sept 26, 2013 4:34:30 GMT
"A person's a person, no matter how small!" And that summarizes my position.
It all depends, of course, on how you define "self." My personal opinion is that a person's "self," rather than referring to consciousness or self-awareness of any level, simply refers to being an individual, unique and, well, existent. Just by existing as an individual, a person, no matter the age, consciousness, awareness, or abilities, is their own person. Siddhartha desperately tries to get rid of his "Self." I do not think this refers to his awareness or consciousness or human-ness or any such feature because it is my understanding that he already succeeded in ridding himself of those things when he was a Samana. When I read about his struggles to eradicate his "Self," I thought it was more something inborn and natural that he could not get rid of. Idiosyncrasies, preferences, differences among people, perspective or "inner voice", all are manifestations of the Self that exists in everyone. I definitely do not think that someone has to be aware of their Self in order to have one. In fact, I think that that awareness can detract from one's Self. For example, Siddhartha, when he decided to seek his Self, found that he didn't know his Self at all. As an intelligent, self-aware human, Siddhartha spent much time and energy contemplating his Self: hiding it, eradicating it, seeking it, changing it, analyzing it, and so on. We all have done this to some extent. Luke, however, has not. (At least I'm assuming he hasn't...) This does not detract from his Self though! It just means that his Self is more unchanged and original. Sheridan says it perfectly, that "little children are completely and utterly their Self. They don't know how to control any of it, and they are purely their own person, without any of that external influence." We, along with Siddhartha, lost that quality long ago. We no longer have our true, original Self, uninfluenced by things we have learned and experienced, by stereotypes, cliches, and expectations. So, my conclusion is that Luke actually has a truer Self than I do! *disclaimer: my thoughts may or may not have been influenced by Luke's extreme adorableness*
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Sept 26, 2013 4:46:22 GMT
This question is really making me wonder what "self" is. Is it our beliefs, our hobbies, our tendencies, our weaknesses and strengths that make up self? Or is part of it the body we live in and the face we have? Is part of it our unique genetic code? I would argue that a large part of "self" is present at birth, even before birth. I deeply respect the choices we make out of our own free will, but I think there is a part of "self" that is the same from the day you are born to the day you die. This idea is definitely present throughout Siddhartha's journey, despite his attempts as a Samana to "[take] flight from self... temporary escape from the torment of Self" (17). The Samanas see the self as the source of suffering, yet after he meets Gotama, he realizes his mistake: "I will no longer try to escape from Siddhartha" (39). Though he goes through many radical changes in lifestyle after he leaves his family, the "self" of Siddhartha remains concrete. Even after he hears the "om", he still "recognized... the Self in his breast, Siddhartha, self-willed, individualistic" (91). Even in his deepest connections with the unity of life, Siddhartha still remains named and clearly defined. I think Hesse uses Siddhartha's name to recognize this "self". A name is like a label, an indicator that this thing has "self". I think your nephew's existence alone defines his "self", a "self" that will stay the same until the day he dies. His name, Luke Parris Page, gives his existence a label, a tangible marker of a being with "self".
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by rishi on Sept 26, 2013 4:48:21 GMT
Stats and effort values (EVs) are of utmost importance when raising a Pokémon. According to Bulbapedia, an online Pokémon encyclopedia, "Effort values (abbreviated EVs and previously called Stat Exp), officially called base stats (Japanese: きそポイント base point), are attributes which give bonuses to a Pokémon's stats and improve differently depending which Pokémon they defeat." Essentially, this means that Pokémon can change and improve their base stats by battling different types of Pokémon. As a child (and possibly now), I was/am an avid fan of Pokémon. Even though Pokémon may today seem obsolete to many of my peers, its concepts such as stats, EVs, and evolution serve as appropriate metaphors for the idea of "Self" presented in Hermann Hesse's novel Siddhartha.
Mr. Parris's nephew, Luke, even at an age of three days, has a Self. I agree with the arguments that Shane and Matt make about the concealed nature of Luke's Self, and I think that my Pokémon metaphor offers a novel way of examining this interpretation. But before explaining this metaphor, let us define "Self." According to Siddhartha, Self is defined as "...thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure, and sorrow..." (Hesse 14). In a more general sense, the concept of "Self" encompasses the natural characteristics and feelings of an individual. Now that "Self" is defined, let's talk about Pokémon.
Let's equate a newborn baby to a newly hatched Charmander. For those unfamiliar with the game of Pokémon, Charmander is the first form of the powerful fire Pokémon Charizard. Initially examining the Charmander's stats, it appears that Charmander is a weak Pokémon; it has barely any stats, barely any "natural characteristics," barely any "Self." However, by battling different Pokémon, Charmander gains levels, and in doing so, increases its stats. Eventually Charmander evolves into Charizard, and observing Charizards stats, we are able to see that Charizard has unique characteristics: it has much higher special attack and speed stats compared to many other Pokémon. We could not see the magnitude of this difference in a newly hatched Charmander due to its lack of experience. Charmander's "Self" was concealed. According to Bulbapedia, ultimately, all Charizards will have high special attack and speed stats, and this confirms that all Charmanders are destined to achieve relatively the same stats. Charmander's stats - its natural characteristics, its Self - is innate. Just as baby Charmander innately has high special attack and speed stats, baby Luke's self could hypothetically be innately smart or innately clumsy, we will not see the extent of these characteristics until Luke is grown up.
However, experiences can mold one's Self, and in Charmander's case, these "experiences" come in the form of EVs. Battling particular types of Pokémon can increase particular types of stats. This is the foundation for the concept of EVs. For example, battling a Geodude will increase Charmander's defense stat while battling an Machop will increase Charmander's attack stat. Charmander's defense and attack stats are not innately high, but by battling certain Pokémon, these stats can increase. Similarly, an individual's innate "Self" can be molded through experiences such as violence and success. Specifically, a result of exposure to violence could be Post-Traumatic Stress disorder while a result of repeated success could be arrogance. These are not intrinsic characteristics of an individual but they can be induced through life's experiences.
To concisely answer your question, Luke's "Self" is created when he is born. Science only verifies this fact: Luke's genes (which influence his natural characteristics, his "Self") are with him since his conception. This "Self" is initially concealed due to Luke's lack of experiences and expression, but as Luke ages and is able to express himself, his "Self" is revealed. Luke is a Charmander.
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Sept 26, 2013 4:54:42 GMT
If we look at some definitions from...
Merriam Webster
Self - the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person - the entire person of an individual
Cambridge
Self - who a person is, including the qualities such as personality and ability that make one person different from another
Oxford
Self - a person’s essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action
Dictionary.com
Self - a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality - a person's nature, character, etc.
Going by these definitions, I would say baby Luke has a self in one form or another. If we come from a scientific approach, Luke has already acquired his life's worth of genetic material. His appearance, for the most part, is determined. His internals are determined. If we talk about emotions and physical feelings, I think babies display these at their rawest. They cry when in pain or sadness, and they laugh and smile when they are happy. We may never know the exact reason for his baby actions, but babies clearly display their emotions. Oh. They will also sleep when tired, unlike us old people...
If we talk about the baby as a whole, there must be something that separates him from all of the other babies, something that gives him a self. No two babies are alike. Some cry a lot, some laugh a lot, some are calm, and some move uncontrollably. If you but 1000000000 babies together and watch them all, are any of them going to have the exact same actions and emotions? I don't think so. There must be some reason for a baby's actions, but we will never know what the reason is. Luke is unique, so he has a self, even if he doesn't know it himself.
Lets talk names. We discussed the importance of names for identity. There is only one Luke Parris Page with this particular set of chromosomes, personality-units, and appearance-traits. And if name is so crucial to one's sense of self, then this name, though only 3 days in existence, has great weight in Luke's identity.
Adding all of these factors together (name, genes, appearance, baby emotions and physical feelings and actions), we already have a defined picture of the baby's self. He has individuality and personality. He may not be aware of his current state of self, but the self is present, and it will only continue to grow.
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Sept 26, 2013 4:56:45 GMT
One of my favorite quotes of all time (which, granted, is not saying much, because I have way too many "favorite quotes of all time") is from *The Color Purple* by Alice Walker. It goes:
"God is inside you and inside everybody else. You come into the world with God. But only them that search for it inside find it. And sometimes it just manifest itself even if you not looking, or don't know what you looking for."
And although the quote may seem simple, and even a bit cliche, without context, I can still remember the moment I read that passage about a year ago; I cannot truly describe the feeling of reading those words, but I suppose the closest parallel I can make is to standing in the rain by the side of the road, watching cars rush by, and knowing that everything about that moment points to mundanity and dreariness but you just feel absolutely serene and at peace with the world anyways. I would also like to enunciate that, in my interpretation of this quote, God is not necessarily the God of Biblical fame, but more a reference to whatever each individual associates with eternal love and truth.
I suppose I introduced this quote because it is the clearest way in which I can portray my belief about what the self may be. While we all might feel, act and look different on the outside, I am not sure I believe that each person's purest self is differentiable from others' selves. As the quote states, I believe at the core of each being is the same essence of beauty and compassion (my interpretation of God), and even if we do not actively search for that essence, it still eternally exists within each one of us. Hence, I am not sure I have an explanation for why each human being has unique interests, beliefs, etc., I do not know whether they are part of the fundamental self or just nuances to the common soul/self of all life. For, as Hesse writes in *Siddartha*, "It is written: 'Your soul is the whole world. It says that when a man is asleep, he penetrates his innermost and dwells in Atman" (Hesse 7). Fittingly, the Buddhist definition of "Atman" is the essential self, or soul. Siddartha embraces these words in the story, and so do I. Perhaps we are separate beings during the day, but when we let our guards down at night and allow rest to overcome us, we all dwell in the same Atman.
So, after all this rambling about what the self truly is in my mind, I believe that of course little Luke Parris has a self. I believe that "[his] soul is the whole world," and his unique characteristics (perhaps already developing, or maybe rather they are to be acquired through his experiences) are the wonderful little details embellished on one piece of a bigger picture. And it is those little details about each being that are in constant flux; the soul, however, will never change. All we can ever hope is that the little details never become so magnified that they overshadow the most fundamental self: the Atman, or soul.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Sept 26, 2013 4:57:46 GMT
COMIC SANSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Actual post begins after the line.
Skimming through the responses so far, the dance music isn't about whether or not Luke has a self but more of what is a self is. If summarized basically, "The ability to perceive the world," "having a personality," and "thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure and sorrow" (14)---which is different from simple perception because it includes the analysis of perception----are all doing what I assume is a very awkward looking tango.
I tend to lean in the direction of the "self" being the self described in Siddhartha: the ability to perceive and the ability to analyze perceptions. Luke has this: he can express his basic needs through crying. The prompt, however, digs deeper than this.
Age is the focal point of the prompt because the common perception is that in order to have a self, one must have been in existence for a long enough amount of time. Taking what appears to be "the self" from Siddhartha, however, also requires taking in other concepts from the book, particularly those about time. Hesse writes, "...all small children are potential old men, all sucklings have death within them...During deep meditation it is possible to dispel time, to see simultaneously all the past, present and future, and then everything is good, everything is perfect, everything is Brahman" (144). From my understanding of Siddhartha, Luke has always had a self because he has always had the potential to have a self, and he always will have a self because the existence of his self will leave a legacy. Luke's existence and subsequent self-dom are visible through the creation of a theoretical timeline---as long as Luke has a point where he has a self, we can point to that point and state that Luke has a self.
Luke Parris Page has not only a self in the sense that he has thirst and desire, as indicated every time he cries, but also has a self in the sense that everything is everything. Luke was to become Luke before his mother, his father, his grandparents, and his great-great grandparents were even zygotes. And Luke will grow to have a "self" in all the ways one can have a self, and in thousands of years he will still have a self simply because he will have had a self at one point.
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Sept 26, 2013 4:57:47 GMT
I definitely agree that it's hard to define what Self is. Siddhartha goes on an epic journey to eradicate his Self, to lose his Self by becoming a Samana and putting his mind into dying animals and whatnot. No matter how hard he tried, however, he always returns to his Self. This of course supports my (and many other people's) idea that a Self cannot be eradicated. That even in death you still possess a Self. Ignoring my beliefs on what happens in the afterlife (because I really have no idea what I believe about that), your Self continues to exist through the people you've touched. Pictures may retain your image and your name may be written boldly on your gravestone, but it is your Self that people will remember.
Additionally, after Siddhartha goes on his epic journey, he decides that instead of losing his Self, he will find his Self. Despite his rather counter-productive route of getting there, I think Siddhartha's journey to finding his Self (including his little deviation to the land of money and other...stuff) is a complicated, yet important route to take. I think that by trying to lose his Self (by being a Samana), then getting...sidetracked and losing his way, before finally continuing on his journey to find his Self adds to the depth with which he can explore his Self.
As to the extremely adorable Luke's Self, yes he has one. Every person has one from the moment they are born (perhaps even before as they kick around in the womb) and nothing can take it away. Our sense of self can be and is influenced by our surroundings. Our understanding of our selves changes with the years as we explore who we are as people. But our Self is there from the very beginning.
|
|
|
Post by travistoal on Sept 26, 2013 5:01:51 GMT
A sapling is not a tree, and a baby is not a human. To claim otherwise is setting women's rights back 400 years, which is why we need to protect the sanctity of 4th trimester abortions.
Ahem. Self and identity are concepts that are extremely simple to throw out there, but extremely difficult to back up with some kind of explanation. Does the Blind Man have any more identity than the narrator's wife? Obviously we feel like we know Robert more than the wife, like he's more humanized, but why is that? All the people here saying that stripping someone of their name dehumanizes them certainly has a point, but a name isn't necessary to have an identity, a label, a self. In fact, a name pretty much means jack. Compare the narrator's wife to Beulah, for example. Even though we know nearly nothing about the wife, she's still more defined as a person than the racially-ambiguous wife of the blind man. However, all of that simply relates to how outsiders view a person. 'Self' is different to describe, because I can't feel what others feel; I can only know my own Self, and use that as a reference to interpret other Selves with. Is Self an achievement to be striven for, or is it a primordial trait, something that always was and always will be? It can be argued that Siddhartha had already found his Self before he began on his quest to rid his mind of 'himself' in the first place. However, without the journey, he never would have had the opportunity to experience the land, and the joys of humanity, and realize exactly what nirvana was -- Siddhartha. Because we're all Siddhartha on the insiiiide. In conclusion, now I just really want to make a movie about a witty baby, a mischievous giraffe, tasteful house music, a whole LOT of peyote and the search for life's meaning.
It's called Calves in the Jungle and the poster is the baby's calves and the calf's calves (but like a lot taller than the baby's) and it features STRFKR and it's a comedy/drama and it comes out this summer and it will make billions.
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Sept 26, 2013 5:25:43 GMT
To assume that Luke has either a completely formed self or no self at all is a false dichotomy. I maintain that Luke has a nascent self. A person’s self is the part of him that makes choices – not only about what to do, but also about what attitudes to have and what to think. We are born with a self that has the potential to develop in many different directions. A baby’s primitive self is quite capable of making all of the decisions that he faces, e.g. whether to cry, whether to kick, etc. His genetic makeup plays a predominant role in his decision-making at this stage. As he works through childhood, his parents’ upbringing, his environment, and his education shape his self to a substantial degree. Then, as he becomes a young adult, his own choices become the dominant factor in the development of his self. In Siddhartha, we see this pattern in Siddhartha’s early life. After spending his youth living as his father and his religious teachers directed, he makes a choice to become a Samana in order to develop his self in a new direction.
The development of the self can continue throughout life, if one does not allow himself to be consumed by greed or other vices. It is important to note that a more developed self is not necessarily a more complex one: “From that hour Siddhartha ceased to fight against his destiny. There shone in his face the serenity of knowledge, of one who is no longer confronted with the conflict of desires, who has found salvation, who is in harmony with the stream of events, with the stream of life, full of sympathy and compassion, surrendering himself to the stream, belonging to the unity of all things” (136). A highly developed self can recognize underlying patterns and universal truths which enable it to make choices in a very simple way.
|
|