Philosophical Convergence (pt 2)

An approach similar to the last, but this time to the Buddhist concept of Anatman/Anatta (the lack of self).

Enjoy!

First of all...I - yes, I, despite the fact that I still hold I doesn't know what it is in the first place - have to admit that I find Buddhism satisfying and always have.

My dad has always told me it's just because I love mind games and always have.

Philosophically speaking, though, he's a pretty materialistic sorta guy. If he can't see/hear/feel/taste/smell it, it probably doesn't exist.

Philosophically speaking, I fall closer to the path of the skeptic than anything else. In order to arrive at the most accurate statement possibly concerning my philosophical beliefs, solve the following equation:
(I may know nothing but that)+[(I'm not sure that)n]+(I know nothing), where n equals infinity.

I also think that math is a wonderful language for skeptics. Using absolutes to express possibilities of non-absolutes can be great fun.

I'm getting off-topic, though.

Post a thread on the idea that you should have no self and how that might affect one's actions in the world.

I should have no self? First of all, stating that "I" should have no "self" is a bit of an oxymoron. Self, if I understand correctly, is understood by Buddhist thought to be merely an illusion. This, as discussed in my earlier post on Hinduism, is, as I understand it, held by Buddhist doctrine to be Truth with a capital "T".
Putting aside for now the argument that not everybody recognizes it as such, and so it cannot be, if this doctrine is actually universal truth, any statement including individual pronouns are, strictly speaking, rendered inaccurate. For if there is no self, there can be no "I" to ponder the fact that there is no self.

Actually, with this in mind, the doctrine that there is no self is self-contradictory. Let us establish a list of ideas that, for the sake of argument, we shall accept as fact (contrary - perhaps - to skeptical thinking):
1. The doctrine that self is illusion, if true, must be true for all.
2. There is currently in existence a certain doctrine of human thought which holds that there is no self.
3. Some humans consciously know of this doctrine.
4. Some humans don't.
5. Some humans consciously agree with this doctrine.
6. Some don't.
7. In order for those who don't know of or agree with this doctrine to gain knowledge of it, it must be communicated.
8. Communication requires a transmitter and a receiver.
9. A transmitter, when transmitting, cannot receive, nor can a receiver, when receiving, transmit.
10. Holding concepts #8 and #9 to be true, in order for communication to take place, there must be a transmitter of some sort which is separate from the receiver which it is transmitting to, and vice versa.
11. Holding concept #10 to be true, in order for one who has no knowledge of the idea that there is no self to gain such knowledge, two selves of some sort must exist: one to transmit, and one to receive.
12. Holding concepts #3 and #4 to be true (note the word "conscious"), it is impossible for the concept that self is illusion to be true, for at some point, at least one self must exist to communicate to at least one other self that no selves exist.

Got it?

Okay, here's the breakdown: It's true that there are conscious, thinking beings who aren't aware of the idea that self is illusion, right?
Well, how do they learn it?
One could say it's an internal realization, but if it is, they still have to think about it at some point, and thinking about a self - even if it's concerning the lack of one - first requires a self of some sort to do the thinking.
If it's an external realization, then one must accept the fact that a self had to exist to give them the information that there is no self, and another self had to exist to receive the information that there is no self.
In addition to all the mental gymnastics above, one has to take into account the nature of Truth and Oneness (yes, those are capitalized for a reason). In order to be universal, Truth, as discussed in the post about Hinduism, must indeed be universal - instantly recognizable and undeniable to anyone. If there is no self, only a single One, then that One, as a single collective entity, must be capable of instantly and undeniably recognizing said Truth when presented with it.
Now let us say that there is no self, that all is One.
If this all-encompassing One was presented with Truth (as defined above), it - all of it, given the above definition of Truth - would instantly and undeniably recognize and acknowledge it as such.
In addition to that, in order for the Truth to be Truth in the first place, the One doing the recognizing and affirming would have to be a single entity - even if it's a collective one - rather than just part of it.

You see where the problems lie? How can all be One and Truth remain Truth if part of One recognizes Truth when presented with it while another does not?

For that matter, even if all is One, One is a non-zero concept. One has substance. One has singleness.
One - even a collective one - is still individual. A collective self is still a self.

Yet another problem - if a Buddhist admits that we have not consciously discovered the entirety of physical existence, the possibility remains that sentient non-human life exists. What happens to the doctrine of "all is one" if this particular individual collective One encounters another collective One? What is there to say for certain that this collective One is the only collective One in existence?
How does one deny self altogether while affirming that all individual human beings are part of a greater collective?
First of all, one has to affirm individual human beings - if only in conceptual form - in order to form this equation. Secondly, is not a greater self still a self? How could part of a non-self have any concept of its own existence? For that matter, if all is One, then any idea belonging to a single human, being that self is illusion, must at its root belong to the One, and with that in mind, given that self is illusion, how could the One have knowledge of its own existence (given that its own existence - or self - wouldn't be there to have knowledge of in the first place) to doubt if it had no self?

With all that said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the little bit of the One writing this post has some questions concerning the idea that there is no self that it wants answered before it acknowledges the idea that it doesn't exist as an individual.

I do, however, like the monistic tendencies inherent in the statement. The doctrine of "all which exists, exists" seems to make sense to me, and when you get right down to it, "all is One" isn't that much of a stretch from there.

As for how the doctrine of "all is one" could affect actions in the real world...it shouldn't. Quite simply, if all is One, there should be no motivation for behavior of any sort, since motivation requires a self to be motivated.

Let us take a simple idea to demonstrate: harm.

In all seriousness, if all is One, there is no reason for part of the One to wish harm upon another part, for what harms the One harms all of the One, and if one harms one part, one harms all parts.
Given that self-preservation (...) tends to run strong in humanity, one should not harm anything, because if one harms anything, one harms everything, including oneself.

Of course, this raises the question of why exactly harm is bad. Usually, harm is bad because it means immediate chances of survival are somehow decreased (i.e. pain being the body's method of letting the CNS know that it's injured). If the self is merely illusion, though, and all is One, self-preservation by the individual self should no longer be in any way relevant, since only the One should be motivated by self-preservation, given that all other selves are simply illusion and thus incapable of being motivated in the first place. Of course, for the One to have motivating factors for behavior, the One would need a self to be motivated...but since there is no self and all is One, there should be no motivation for any behavior, ever, self preservation included.

To put it another way, consider this:
For the following equation, consider the following to be true.
factor that is doing=A, factor that is being done to=B, All=C, and action done=X. A=C, therefore C=A. B=C, therefore C=B. A=C and B=C, therefore A=B.

If A=C and B=C, any X done by A to B is also done to C, since B=C. Since A=C as well, any X done by A to B is also done to A. Thus, no value of X should be harmful, for harm done by any value of A to any value of B is immediately done to A as well, and is thus undesirable.

Of course, the problem here lies with the fact that neither A nor B actually exist, since they are both really C, rendering the equation as follows:

No value of X should be harmful, for any X done to C by C is done to C.

With this in mind, any X done by A to B should be completely irrelevant, since neither A nor B exist to do or be done to in the first place and C, if it wishes to do harm to itself, since, being All, cannot by its nature actually be correct or incorrect (given that it wholly encompasses both concepts), should be free to do so.

This is usually the part where logic apologizes for making a mess on the carpet and goes to sit quietly in its corner again.

In conclusion?

One should not ponder the nature and/or existence of selfhood, including real-world consequences, while driving, pregnant, or capable of coherent thought. Possible side effects may include headaches, nausea, double vision, difficulty breathing, neural implosion, spontaneous combustion, insanity, and/or sudden and unexpected lack of existence.
Use with caution.