Cody
“I find some of your terminology unfamiliar.”
I usually try to make it up on the fly to most clearly describe what I mean, rather than use jargon which I’m unsure people will recognize. So my ego-relations, I mean the relations between [the subject of whatever I’m talking about] and the ego.
“I do not believe that ‘Culture is the most powerful tool for defining ego-relations.’ The most powerful tool is what one IS.”
I don’t think you’re disagreeing, but rather misconstruing. Honestly enough though, as it’s related to what you voiced difficulty with.
I made a specific point in my post to refer to ‘self’ on the one-hand, and ‘the relationships one has with one’s sense of self’ (ego-relations) on the other. Thus, you’re quite right - we are what we are. But how we decide to relate various things to that self is a different matter; and of all the things which affect that matter, culture is the greatest.
“You are equating self with the programming of outside influences.”
No I’m not. See above.
“‘How do you act contrary to the self?’ when the self is buried, when you don’t have enough awareness of your mind and heart, etc. It’s done all the time”
Quite right. Exactly what I said.
When you say ‘the self is buried’, what do you mean? It is when aspects or all of the ‘true self’ are not directly available to that which it is attributed, the person. Yet the person still has a subject for his actions and experiences. If the subject is not true self, then it is not the self who is acting. This is exactly what I said. The same argument can be made for your terminology ‘you don’t have awareness of your mind and heart.’
“That’s what remorse is for.”
I’m not sure this is true. Concievably, I will feel remorse for things even my true self is overtly the subject of (ie. when the attributions in the above discussion are not true). Could this be only because I am not a perfect being? Perhaps. Even if this is so, then it would still be true that remorse is not, in fact, for ‘this.’
“The self exists before culture.”
Which self? Self, in any sense which either one of us can communicate with language to one another, does not exist before culture.
“what is the kernel that is a human being without this input, at the beginning?”
Since beginning imposes ‘time’ upon the conversation, and kernel imposes ‘matter’, and input imposes ‘plurality’, you’ve biased yourself against ever getting a decent answer. Language itself imposes ‘plurality’ though, so getting around these problems is a difficult task. Maybe that’s why mysticism has such a profundity of metaphor?
In Eden there was a garden and a man, and in the garden was an apple, and in the man was nothing. And the man was happy. His loving father, a sad man, told him not to eat the apple. But one day he did. And then he was eternally sad. For he woke up every morning desiring the taste of an apple.
Can you remember ever not knowing anything about something? And then trying it out one day, and from that day forward being uncomfortable without it? Maybe small things like gelling your hair, or air conditioning, or nice clothes. Or maybe sex.
Or can you remember lying down one day, when you’re really tired and busy. And you just want to feel relaxed for a second. And after a while the relaxed feeling comes on, and you think this is pretty useful to you. But, like a fleck of atomic dust after the big bang precipitating matter to become a red dwarf, that relaxed feeling snowballs and under you go. Your whole way of thinking is changed, you don’t remember it ever being any other way. The world around you shifts uncontrollably. Then a couple hours later you wake up.
“I have described how some unfortunate behavior occurs because of lack of early nurturing.”
Have you? Causes are funny things.
What if we’re walking along, and suddenly I cross the road. You shout out, “Hey! Why’d you do that?” I say, oh… because of the contractions of my leg muscles mostly. You say, no no that’s not what I mean. I say, ohhhh… because of action potentials in various motor units in my… You interject, come on, you know what’s not what I mean! Must have been because of increased activation in my primary motor cortex! Don’t be silly! Must have been because of the propensity for negatively charged particles to move away from like-charge, and vice-versa. Come on now! Ok, must be because of Newton’s laws acting on my feet and the road. Bah, you’re useless, why’d you cross, come on tell me! Ok, ok, it’s because there’s a cake shop here. Oh… yeah but why’d that make you cross? Cause I was hungry. Why? Cause I haven’t eaten. Why? Cause I woke up late for work. Why? Cause my alarm didn’t work. Why? Cause the power went out. Why? Cause there was a lightning storm. Why? Cause there was a build-up of negatively charged ions in the earth.
Enough is enough, I’m sure; well enough. My point is, as I began - causes are funny things. You claim you have proved factually that unpleasant behaviors are causes by unpleasant upbringing. Well, I can claim with equal (and in most cases, far greater) factuality that they are caused by just about any manner of thing I please. What is the cause we are after?
The cause we are after, very simply put, depends entirely on what it is we’re trying to go about when we ask about causes. If what we’re going about is trying to determine the subject of an action, going on about inferential causes is worse than useless - but distracting. It doesn’t mean they’re not useful and helpfull in other situations. Worse - if my argument stands, they’re counter-productive. If my argument stands, the more fuel you give someone to believe the subject of their action is not themself, the more able they’ll be to do it. And my argument does seem to stand, at least with you, as you stated it independantly of me, with your own jargon - see above.
“It follows that poor parenting which results from this requires re-education on a deep level.”
You cannot replace the childhood of an adult who grew up in a bad situation. It cannot be done. All you can do is appeal to their self, to which both nature and nurture ultimately are subserviant. Yes, deep level re-education is required. Of society, who has convinced us all that responsability is an illusion.
