What if you discovered that there was no boundry between self and other?

[EvieTheAvocado]

Nevermind now how you could discover such a thing, or how such a thing could even be possible ... but imagine that you discovered that there was somehow no boundary between self and other ... ultimately speaking. Between your mind and another's.

So, the other is the self and the self is the other, ultimately speaking, in some sense. Imagine if that were true. However, imagine that selves/others are transisent and don't last long so consciousness was a process of popping in and out of existence, a sort of flashing on and off, rather than something permanent. So there was no distinct boundaries between selves and others or self and other.

Now, finally, if you did consider that there was no permanent distinct self or other ... and no distinct boundaries, just transient and arbitrary impermance ...

Would you conclude that the self was an illusion or non-existent? Would you conclude that the self didn't exist and that the fundamental nature of the mind was an absence of self? Or would you conclude that despite the fact that there was no distinct or permananent self, and despite the fact that the boundary between self and other had become meaningless, that the self still existed it just just meant that the self must be indistinct, boundaryless, undifferentiated, transient, impermanent, etc.

I've attached a much less verbose poll on the matter.

[Grandizer]

I don't see a poll...

Perhaps the answer would be both, depending on perspective. But fundamentally, there is no self, sure.

[Bucky Ball]

That's actually a serious question for those who have Boarderline Personality Disorder ... as I recall.
https://www.verywellmind.com/borderline-...ues-425488

It's pretty well known in psych circles.

[EvieTheAvocado]

You may need to refresh or reload the thread, @Grandizer ... as I spent a while creating the poll but it forces you to write your post before you post your poll so I said "I have attached a poll on the matter" in my OP before I had actually done it. Was hoping to get the poll finished before someone responded to the OP, but I failed, haha.

[EvieTheAvocado]

That's actually a serious question for those who have Boarderline Personality Disorder ... as I recall.
https://www.verywellmind.com/borderline-...ues-425488

It's pretty well known in psych circles.

I'm glad that you found the question interesting from a psychological perspective even if you're not a philosophy fan!

Do you have an opinion either way? If someone experiences no distinction between self and other in any sort of meaningful way does that mean that they experience no self in any meaningful way? Or would you prefer to say that their experience of the self is just of a different kind, as they simply experience what it's like to have a self without a distinction between it and the other.

Another interesting question is with babies when they're born: When a baby is born they don't originally realize that their mother is not part of them. They assume that the mother is just another part of them. Until they recognize that there is a distinction between them and not them, or between "self" and "not-self", does the baby have any sense of self at all? No? Or yes? If yes, is it just a very primitive and undeveloped sense?

I guess a simple way of asking this question is: Is it possible to have a sense of self without having a distinction between the self and its absence? If you believed 100% with zero doubt that there were no other minds then would that mean that you don't really have a concept of mind at all, and therefore were merely aware rather than self-aware, or would it mean that you believed you were the only mind, and you were perfectly self-aware, you just weren't other-aware?

Is a sense of "other" required for a sense of "self" and vice versa? Are they two sides of the same coin, or is "the self" like the coin and "the other" is merely like the indention on the surfaces of the coin that give the coin more meaning? I'm not entirely sure but I'm leaning towards the latter, at the moment.

[Bucky Ball]

Another interesting question is with babies when they're born: When a baby is born they don't originally realize that their mother is not part of them. They assume that the mother is just another part of them. Until they recognize that there is a distinction between them and not them, or between "self" and "not-self", does the baby have any sense of self at all? No? Or yes? If yes, is it just a very primitive and undeveloped sense?

I think no. It's something they learn, and a well-known subject in child-development.
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/earl...lf-esteem/

[EvieTheAvocado]

Another interesting question is with babies when they're born: When a baby is born they don't originally realize that their mother is not part of them. They assume that the mother is just another part of them. Until they recognize that there is a distinction between them and not them, or between "self" and "not-self", does the baby have any sense of self at all? No? Or yes? If yes, is it just a very primitive and undeveloped sense?

I think no. It's something they learn, and a well-known subject in child-development.
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/earl...lf-esteem/

Yes, I know that they learn the distinction but the question is whether they first develop a sense of self and then a distinction between self and other or whether the sense of self and distinction between self and other are developed together and one and the same sense.

In other words, the article talks about a this-or-that sort of thing ... but do you develop the "this" sense first and then a "this is this but that is that" sense or can you not have a this without a that?

EDIT: @Grandizer Sorry, I forgot to answer the other part of your post.

I agree that it could be either way depending on how we defined the term ... so the question would be which way of looking at it would make more sense.

My opinion is that Buddhism came to the conclusion that there was no meaningfully distinct or lasting self (whether Buddhism came to that conclusion rightly or wrongly) ... and therefore concluded that the best way to interpret that is to say that the self doesn't exist (since they're talking about the self as commonly understood). This, however, understandably confused a lot of people. If I'm here and I literally experience things from a subjective point of view, and I have an identity and a personality and an ego ... then how on Earth can I never be a self in any way? Aren't "I" by definition, a self?

So, if it is true that there is no distinct or lasting self and that the self is indistinct and transient then perhaps it's better to just understand the indistinctness and transience of the self rather than to confuse people by saying that it doesn't exist.

[Dom]

Another interesting question is with babies when they're born: When a baby is born they don't originally realize that their mother is not part of them. They assume that the mother is just another part of them. Until they recognize that there is a distinction between them and not them, or between "self" and "not-self", does the baby have any sense of self at all? No? Or yes? If yes, is it just a very primitive and undeveloped sense?

I think no. It's something they learn, and a well-known subject in child-development.
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/earl...lf-esteem/

Yes, I know that they learn the distinction but the question is whether they first develop a sense of self and then a distinction between self and other or whether the sense of self and distinction between self and other are developed together and one and the same sense.

In other words, the article talks about a this-or-that sort of thing ... but do you develop the "this" sense first and then a "this is this but that is that" sense or can you not have a this without a that?

You are born a narcissist - you only understand the self and it's needs. The recognition of the "other" and identification with it (it's just like me) occurs when still an infant.

At least that was the theory some time ago. Psychology continually does research and changes these kinds of things.

The closest you come to melding with another person is if you are married and living together for many decades. When you are together for 70 years, like my grandparents were, and one person dies, there is little to nothing left of the other one. At least half has gone missing, if not more because one often thinks of the partner more often than oneself. The remaining person dies also in short order. I am surprised Pres. Bush lived as long as he did after Barbara died.

Another way to meld with people is extreme empathy. That is something I am afflicted with - and I meld with anyone in pain or extreme discomfort, fear, etc. Animals included. Even insects. It's a curse, and I have slowly learned to build a protective shield, that helps me from getting totally sucked into a deep hole. This may have happened to me because my mom was often in so much pain when I was a kid, and I mothered her even as a 3 year old.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Thank you for your heartfelt and detailed response, Dom.

I think that we agree. The self and other can merge but a sense of the other is not required to have a sense of self ... and the sense of self-develops first and is more primitive. Some people can also go to the other extreme and be so vicarious (both in good and bad ways) that their self is so focussed on the other that damage to the other damages their self ... but we start by developing a sense of self ... before the other comes in ... rather than the two developing together.

I agree very much.

For anyone who is interested in a tidbit of my own personal view here: To me, caring for your 'future self' (who 'you' will become) isn't just responsible and wise ... but it's, in a way, for me, an act of altruism. Caring for your future self is a good thing in the same way and for exactly the same reasons why caring for other people is a good thing. I know I have a bizarre (but not unique) viewpoint here ... but it makes a lot of sense to me. It means that prudential concern becomes a kind of moral concern ... and that you have a moral responsibility to your future as much as you do towards anyone else. No more, and no less (though, that only applies all other things being equal). I think it's possible to have empathy for and compassion for your future self.

It mostly makes a lot of sense to me because of my presentist view of time.