|
Post by fionabyrne on Sept 26, 2013 5:31:47 GMT
I too believe that Luke does have a self. My personal opinion of what self is is not based in the text, however. It seems to me that everything dynamic has a self. This child has a self because our simple not knowing what is going on inside his head has no impact on what is going on inside his head, his brain is not Scrodinger's cat. If he does not have a self, then when does self develop? Does it come with brain development, or with speech which gives us insight into his mind? I can't see a line drawn in the sand as anything but arbitrary. Siddhartha may disagree. It seems to me that very few concepts in the story are relative or subjective. Enlightenment does not vary person to person, but is one specific achievement, the same for each person. Still though, Siddhartha was on no less of a journey at the beginning than he was at the end. Self, to me, is similar to a journey. A person's self is an ever changing thing, and just because Luke is at the beginning of his journey and his self will change, that does not make invalid his current self.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 26, 2013 5:32:07 GMT
I really don't think so. As a newborn, his brain is processing more information than it ever has. At this point, there hasn't been enough activity to start constructing consistent neural pathways. Even if I concede that the role genetics played in the formation of his brain created predispositions for certain activity that could constitute some form of "self", (which I do) it's still not that much. The foundation is there, but I don't think there has been enough time yet for any substantial character to arise. Anyways, we haven't decided on a unified definition of self, which voids this entire forum.
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Sept 26, 2013 5:43:08 GMT
I believe that Luke does have a self, but I don't think that he's found it yet. Although there is a large age difference, Siddhartha and Luke are fundamentally similar. Both have a self--because I believe all people are born with one--but have yet to find it. Siddhartha has devoted his entire life to finding this meaning, through a variety of different experiences. Despite his best efforts, he has yet to discover himself. He seems to figure out what he is not, but he can not pinpoint who he is, or his "self". Essentially, Luke and Siddhartha have a similar sense of self. Both are unaware of who they are. This does not mean that they do not have a self--because everyone does--it simply means that they haven't yet discovered it. As Luke grows up and experiences different events in his life, he will become closer and closer to discovering his sense of self. Although he already has his sense of self, his experiences will help to reveal it. Hopefully, Luke will have an easier time finding himself than Siddhartha had.
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Sept 26, 2013 6:08:06 GMT
I believe that a Self has to do with desires and pride, and not necessarily with knowing who you are or being aware of your body, as others have said. I think it’s much more and much less than that. In the beginning our novel, Siddartha wants to rid himself of trivial human characteristics to experience true unity and sameness and oneness with the world. He endures pain so that he can ignore it, and accustoms himself to hunger so that it loses its meaning. As a Samana, Siddartha makes admirable attempts to eradicate his humanity to eliminate his “self.” In terms of your three-day-old baby nephew, he does not possess the knowledge to understand those aspects of life. Everything that a three-day-old baby does comes from instinct. To me, there is no Self in that. In fact, instinct is almost the opposite of Self. If one could revert to a time before trivial thoughts and desires, there might not be a “self” to eradicate. I am not saying that Luke’s three days on the planet were insignificant and meaningless. Most likely, his tiny brain has already developed/ understood new patterns since his first breath. Because of this, he likely is beginning to form the first basic idea of a personality/”self.” My impression, however, is that saying he has a “self” is like rounding (way) up in math. I don’t think there is a specific time that can be pinpointed when a human develops a “self,” but I think it has to do with a shift in the balance between instinct and personally motivated action. A self is an identity lacking finite boundaries, and even though it is not equivalent to a personality, everyone has a different Self. Everyone has a different sensitivity level, and a different set of thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Sept 26, 2013 6:08:12 GMT
Well, coincidentally, even though I was not present last class to know of this prompt, my mom and I discussed the concepts of personality, self, and souls yesterday on our own. My mom's brought up a book she'd been reading, "The Seat of the Soul", by Gary Zukav, to initiate our discussion. When she asked a similar question to this, something along the lines of, "Are people born with only a soul? Or are we also born with our personalities?" I responded by explaining that, in my perspective, we are born with a predisposition for certain characteristics to be prevalent in our personality, whether that is due to genetics or the early influence of our parents and family I am unsure, but due to life experiences, and how we perceive our experiences, we direct our development and become the person we wish to be. Zukav writes on senses and perception; "The perceptions of a multisensory human extend beyond physical reality of the larger dynamical systems of which our physical reality is a part" (27). I think these senses that Zukav mentions that extend beyond the basic five are what constitute the idea of Self. It is that spirit that embodies every decision we make and emotion we project that guides our perspective. Our Self is essentially our soul. Like Kamala and Govinda express at the end of the book when they touch Siddhartha, they both feel his peaceful spirit. Kamala and Govinda's multisensory capabilities pick up on the "vibe" of Siddartha's self.
Just as we are born with a predisposition for personality traits, we are all born with a Self. And just as it takes time to develop your personality, it also takes time to develop a sense of Self. So, I agree with the majority who have posted before me and believe that little Luke does have a Self. But, I don't believe that he has an awareness of his Self-ness yet. As we observe in Siddartha's journey, he is constantly seeking to understand his sense of Self. He begins by wanting to destroy it, as mentioned when he thinks, "I wanted to rid myself of the Self, to conquer it, but I could not conquer it, I could only deceive it" (38). He learns to forget himself, immerse himself in his self, to lose himself, to find himself, but in the end discovers that the only way to peace is through unity and the understanding that every aspect of the world is interconnected and valuable. Siddartha explains on page 136, that unity is the essence of Om, and therefore, perfection.
Luke has to have a Self, because everything has a self. A rock, a river, a piece of bark, everything and every living being has a Self as that is the existence in which we unite. By being in tune with all that surrounds us we become more self-aware and discover satisfaction and appreciation over the meaning of "being". Although Luke has a Self, his fresh mental processes haven't experienced much so it is likely he hasn't developed an awareness of his Self. But if he isn't aware now, maybe one day he will realize that his Self is constituted by how he perceives every moment in his life experience.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Sept 26, 2013 6:35:02 GMT
Having a "self", I think, means to have a self-awareness, to know of yourself and to confidently pursue a personality. Yes, this baby has a name. Yes, this baby has experienced life. Yes, he has experienced the passage of time. Yes, he exists as a figure in the heads and memories of other people. But no, Luke doesn't know he has a name. No, he doesn't realize he has experienced life. No, he doesn't understand what time is. And no, he holds no permanent figure of other people in his head, nor the relationships he holds with those people. All of these are characteristics of life, but not of self. Yes, Luke is a human baby, but he doesn't know that he is a human baby. I find it interesting that Siddhartha never questions his ownership over his name. Luke Parris Page doesn't have a self because he doesn't realize he has a name, but Siddhartha very definitively knows his name - he speaks in third person about himself most of the time. Perhaps the reason he can't conquer his obstacle is because he still holds onto his mundane possessions - his memories, his name, and his experiences. These sorts of things define our "selves". And I think this is ultimately what Siddhartha is chasing after. He is trying to lose himself in the heavens but is bound by earthly shackles.
|
|
|
Post by danyhong55 on Sept 26, 2013 6:42:10 GMT
What is the self? Philosophically, the "self" is defined as a more classically Freudian definition of ego. It is "that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers etc..." Of course, this only one school of thought, but it is one that many humans commonly subscribe to. Many students in this class defined self generally as one with idiosyncrasies, unique quirks, and consciousness. A more conservative theological approach would consider that the self start at conception. A psychologist may define that the self require the human to be self-aware. According to Physics, there is no self; we are merely particles dancing together in a convoluted hoe-down. All of these definitions tend to cause some sort of problem: namely, what criteria must a one fill to be considered a "self?" What is the bright-line between "self" and "non-self?" Despite my being scientifically minded, I must say that the self is meaning behind one's existence. This quote has been mentioned before, "The body was certainly not the self, nor the play of senses…Both thought and the senses were fine things, behind both of them lay hidden the last meaning" (48). A common element in our class's definition of the act of cognitive reaction to the environment. Morgan brought up a good point that some us cried more when we were hungry than others. Some of us didn't cry at all as babies. Some of babies' reactions are more than visceral responses and are an accumulation of primitive thoughts derived from the senses. According to Hesse, the self goes beyond these two qualities. From what I gather, the self requires self-awareness, a recognition of meta-physics. Going back to my original definition, the self is about meaning of our lives. It is about why we think and why we perceive and how we think and how we perceive. Recognizing the existence of those four questions goes beyond the physical world in the meta-physical aspect of ourselves. So to answer the original question, Luke does not have a self. He does not recognize his own existence. As a four day old baby there is no way he can even know he exists. All he knows and understands is that the world exists. In fact, becoming fully self-aware does not occur until the child is about four to six. The last process in becoming self-aware is differentiation, when children fully realize that what they think isn't what others think. And being self-aware lets us question who we really are and what the self is. -Knock-knock. -Who's there? -Lettuce -Lettuce who? -Lettuce in. I'll see myself out.
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Sept 26, 2013 6:48:17 GMT
Like always I was a bit confused on the whole self vs. Self idea. So I decided to turn to the internet for some theories. I recommend reading this entire article* because it is very helpful however if you don't have time this is the part I will be referring to:
"A person has a dual nature of two selves, one small self (small ‘s’) is the everyday persona that takes no effort to be installed and this self perform the more ‘humanized’ tasks like eating, and sleeping. The other Self (big ‘S’) requires invoking since it resides deep within a person thus having a subconscious nature." *http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/terms.html
The Self is our core. It is the foundation we grow from and build upon. The adorable Luke most certainly has a self and a Self. He is just not aware of the Self part yet. Finding that Self and understanding what it means takes deep and complicated self-realization. In fact it is so complex Herman Hesse wrote an entire book about it. Siddhartha sees his "self" as something to lose. He wants to rid himself of human simplicities so he can uncover his Self and the purpose of the world.
I am not sure at 3 days old Luke is prepared to sacrifice human simplicity... nor would I recommend it. Right now Luke needs to embrace his lower case self and just be. Some people choose to stay this way. I believe some people spend their entire live with the same lower case self they had at 3 days old. But others like Siddhartha try to dive into the depths of their Self. Enlightenment takes an extraordinary amount of work and at 3 days old Luke has better things too worry about like naps. But his Self is there and whenever he chooses to find it his journey will begin and I believe it is a journey that will never truly end. I can't know for certain but I believe Luke and all his adorable fingers and toes has a Self just like everyone does. And I hope one day he not only finds it but also finds great happiness and fulfillment. I also hope for your brother/sister's sake he tries a different method than Siddhartha. Congratulations, he is beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Sept 26, 2013 6:50:41 GMT
I was born angry. From ages zero till around 6 or 7, I had serious issues with forgiveness and managing my premature angst. Today, however, I think of myself as at least a little less intense and hateful than I was growing up and I believe this is a result of an ongoing repertoire of sticky situations and unexpected kindness from others. As I've increased in age, I feel I've also increased in Self, as I sink into a milder temper. I like what Joel said about consciousness and idiosyncrasies and while I'm sure that little Luke has these things, I agree that he doesn't quite yet have what we've coined a "self". My minuscule training in the field of psychology, which has completely gone to my head, has introduced me to the argument of 'nature vs. nurture', a close cousin to the ever-dreaded 'fate vs. freewill' debate. While Sheridan may believe Self is inherent and slowly discovered over time, I don't find it to be quite so pre-destined. Self, as it appears to me, seems so be this bizarre collage of various experiences, moments in time and interactions... or so I'd like to think.
|
|
steph
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by steph on Sept 26, 2013 7:11:21 GMT
I may be using this idea that I've been salsa-ing with to emotionally distance myself from a sense of Self (I'm not pulling a Siddhartha here and being ascetic about it, but it could be viewed as a form of "Self"-denial), but one can view Self as a complex system of chemical reactions. One could make that the argument that psychology, a branch of study about the Self, is based in biology, which in turn is based in chemistry. Bullet in the Brain touches on this idea, when the bullet is moving at a sloth pace in comparison to the brain's electric movement, and the physical memory of an incredibly important moment in a baseball field is thrown into the conscious thought. In class, we used that moment of Ander's life to define him a lot. We used that one chance piece of glue-like protein to find his Self. This forum has cited that one's self changes all the time, and is does; it changes every neuro-second and with every new piece of new information received and every adjustment our brain, the accepted holder of one's consciousness, makes. If our Self is found in the finite processes of our brain, then I argue that Luke has a self.
as a side-note, I'm still not at all comfortable with this idea, and I don't believe I've expanded upon it, or its implications/lack of implications, fully.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Sept 26, 2013 7:22:36 GMT
Luke is a nephew. The nephew is a baby. The baby is cute.
Some people have opined that the very recognition of baby Luke verifies the existence of a “self”. I disagree with this notion.
“Self” can be seen in two flavors. It can be defined as both the characteristic of being human and an aspect of self-awareness. In the case of this your inquiry, Jason Parris, I find the latter meaning to be more relevant to our exploration of Siddhartha. As David and Joel noted, it is a medically and societally accepted belief that humans aren’t born with an immediate understanding of self-awareness.
Luke, like all infants, is no more than a functioning collection of organs at the early stage of post-natal development. When Siddhartha mulls over his “self” after encountering Gotama, he thinks, “The body was certainly not the self, nor the play of sense…Both thought and the senses were fine things, behind both of them lay hidden the last meaning” (48). Siddhartha dichotomizes the body and the self-awareness to be two different entities. When his opinion, which I agree of, is applied to awesome-baby-Luke, the “self” is missing.
Not trying to leapfrog to conclusions, I can assume by the photo that Luke is still entirely dependant on another human source for nourishment and living support (unless he’s a super-baby?). As a result, Luke has no differentiating/entitling “self” that allows him to contemplate change in his cutey-patootie-baby-behavior.
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Sept 26, 2013 7:30:51 GMT
I have to agree with Joel’s post on this one. Everyone is born with an inherent set of characteristics and the ability to interpret the world as it presents itself- but that does not mean a baby has an understanding of their own self.
It seems that this idea of “self” has been defined as a fundamental awareness of one’s own existence and surroundings. To me, this definition is crude and incomplete. As presented in Siddhartha, self is defined as a holistic collection of desires, experiences, and thoughts. This is exemplified when Siddhartha says that he wishes, I would argue that this pure state Siddhartha wishes to reach-where one no longer is controlled or influenced by the experiences and desires of life- is attainable as a baby. Newborns do not have the life experience or understanding of themselves (and others) to formulate opinions that extend beyond their own existence. Yes, they understand that it is uncomfortable when water is too hot, but that is simply a reaction to their environment. If a baby hears someone sobbing, do they think “wow I wonder why this person is so sad hmm I wish I could make him or her feel better”, or do they think, “what the heck is that noise I do not like that sound at all make it stop”? Any interaction with the world is experienced on terms of immediacy and how it effects oneself, and I believe that this relationship with the world is too hollow to contribute to an establishment of “self”.
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Sept 26, 2013 7:47:38 GMT
"The brain is a wonderful organ. It starts working the moment you get up in the morning and does not stop until you get into the office" - Robert Frost
Although Luke has a face, fingers, a nose, and a brain, I don't believe Luke has possesses a self at this early stage in life. There is no single brain structure that embodies the self. In fact, a self cannot be developed without the existence of millions of other people in this world. Sure there are numerous genetical factors that play into the idea of a self; however, the truth is self is also influenced by the actions, behaviors, ideas, and opinions of other people. The lack of self awareness and exposure to the world allows me to believe Luke still has yet to develop a self.
Siddhartha has always struggled with the idea of finding his own self and convinces his father to let him become a Samana. With the hesitant approval of his father, Siddhartha states his goal, "...to become empty, to become empty of thirst, desire, dreams, pleasure and sorrow - to let the Self die...When all the Self was conquered and dead, when all passions and desires were silent, then the last must awaken, the innermost of Being that is no longer Self - the great secret" (14). Basically, Siddhartha is attempting to go the opposite direction of Luke. While Luke, who is not aware of his passions and desires at three days old, is on his way to developing a self, Siddhartha is attempting to rid of his self in order to become enlightened. It's odd to think that a baby who is a few days old possesses exactly what Siddhartha is looking for: the great secret.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Sept 26, 2013 8:03:10 GMT
Luke Parris Page does not have a self.
Let me explain.
When Baby Luke applies for college during the coming months (they sure do start ‘em early these days), he will likely be asked to provide three words to describe himself. I imagine it will be exceedingly difficult for Luke to respond to the question not only because of linguistic restraints, but also because of his lack of self-realized identity. He has no perception of his own personality. Thus, while Luke contains the humanity and uniqueness found within every soul, he lacks awareness of his self – and, therefore, lacks self altogether.
|
|
|
Post by haleyjensen on Sept 26, 2013 13:24:25 GMT
Beautiful Luke Parris Page absolutely has a self.
I agree with a lot of what many other people have said so far about Luke's developing self. This precious child hasn't been penetrated by much emotional or academic stimulation because he is only a few days old, and with that take, one might not consider his thoughts very complicated. And though he is a mere infant, I'm sure he has already voiced his opinion about a lot of things: things that scare him, when he's tired or not, when he's hungry, how much time he wants to occupy with his parents... Babies have this amazing method of communicating their needs: crying. For those who have babysat before... You may understand the feeling of hearing a baby cry after you put it to sleep. All the kids are in bed, and you quietly tiptoe into the living room of the people you are babysitting for (to eat food and watch tv) and you hear that the sad cry and realize the baby is no longer asleep. When you walk back in to the nursery, the baby might be calmer because he/she knows that there is another room. However, they may cry even more because they know that you're not their parent. Babies take on small quirks and characteristics like his from the time they are born. Some babies are great sleepers, some are great about eating, and some present some trouble. Regardless of their specific behavior, baby behavior in general is indicative of a baby's self, however developed that self may be.
Now, to bring it back to Siddhartha... I think Siddhartha gives us a clear description of the nature of self on pg 38. As Siddhartha is pondering what he wants to learn from teachers and teachings, he has this thought, "It was the self, the character and nature of which I wished to learn. I wanted to rid myself of the Self, to conquer it, but I could not conquer it, I could only deceive it, only fly from it, could only hide from it" (38). Self is something, that in all Siddhartha's power, he just could not get away from; this speaks to the powerful nature of self & identity, which I believe are closely intertwined. In health right now, my class is learning about self esteem. One of the bullet points from the notes is that other people play a big role in our self esteem. Could this be true for self as well? If so, then in baby Luke's case, his family is probably helping contribute to his self for loving him just as he is: an adorable baby boy.
*Forgive me if somebody else already used any of these ideas or quotes. So many great responses, it is hard to read through them all.
|
|