Sunday, March 23, 2008

Me and You

"Why bother with a constant and/or cohesive self in the first place..?"

So why do we bother..? Both in fiction and reality we seem to set much store by rigidly behaving today just as we behaved yesterday. We have our pride and our principles and sometimes we adher to them even to the point of derision or death. It would seem mal-adaptive to have an intrinsic mechanism that drives us to become 'one' person, when a chameleon might prosper better. And yet such a trait seems pan-human. ...Continued...

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

true that.
'specially 'bout the monster being feared b/c it it the unpredictable. (although aren't we certain about the harm that the beast intends? Isn't that what the film/book/myth hinges on--that Grendel will always be after our blood?)

But what I really want to ask--and I promise this is a genuine question-- are we ever doing it just for ourselves? If I am consistent for my partner, or child or neighbor, isn't is about what they do for me? We don't present that consistent form for charitable reasons, but b/c being part of community, knowing that we *need* them?

Anonymous said...

Sweet post. The last sentence really says it all.

This reminds me of some stories I've read where people take drugs, have strokes, etc. and reach a mental state where the ego boundary becomes blurred. These people no longer feel like separate selves, like 'I's. I think these phenomena support your assumption that the 'I' is a construct which functions in the mind for a purpose. That and the overall paradigm of evolution, I suppose.

Tab said...

are we ever doing it just for ourselves? If I am consistent for my partner, or child or neighbor, isn't is about what they do for me?

Sure, but I think it's a two-way gig within the very close spheres of contact. In a family situation, we co-evolve personality wise - say husband and wife - but despite the 'progressive' changes, stay relatively the same with regard to
altruistic/selfish ratios. We run in place, or fall, and fall out of love.

Of course the consistant 'I' is for our benefit, a 'selfish' tool. When I say the 'I' is for the 'other' I mean it in the way we say "the hammer is for the nail" which, though a truism, disregards the hand which holds the haft, and the real intent behind it.

strangeloop said...

long time no posts. I've got you on my favorites and I'm pining for more. Please...more.

Tab said...

Sorry Strangeloop, holidays, kids and book-writing have been interfering with blog-life.

As soon as I think of something clever I'll be posting once-more.