the complex "I"

From G. F. R. Ellis’s, Cosmology and Verifiability:

The problem with determining [the structure of the universe] is centered on the fact that there is only one universe to be observed, and that we effectively can only observe it from one space-time point. Because it is a unique object, we cannot infer its probable nature by comparing it with similiar objects; and we are unable to choose the time or position from which we view it. Our predicament is analogous to that of a premaritime man living on a small island in an ocean, who observes around him a host of other small islands apparently scattered at random on a seemingly limitless sea. Unable to move from his island, his theory of the world in which he lives can only be based on this partial view.

I wonder: how is this analogous to the manner in which we come to understand who we think we are—to the manner in which we come to view the world around us as “I”?

In a sense “I” am also isolated on an “island”. No one has ever lived my life as I have; and thus no one can really understand the world the way I do. There are just too many variables coalescing, conflicting, colliding—a virtual infinity of existential permutations.

But unlike the islanders in Ellis’s metaphor, I can get up and go…I can explore other islands [people] by observing what goes on and by asking questions; and by accummulating and collating my perceptions [my experiences] into conceptual contraptions that can be defended as more or less reasonable.

Still, just as there is [as far as we know] only one universe we are trying to understand from “inside” it, we can’t detach our “self” from our existential roots in order to garner the necessary objectivity to delineate where “I” and “all that is other than I” begin and end. How are the two parts actually intertwined? What can we know about this relationship objectively? Especially in acknowledging how the relationships are constantly shifting about and becoming entangled in all manner of contingency, chance and change—in all manner of fabrication and refabrication.

To me this is obvious. It’s just commonsense. But the implications of it are deeply disturbing to others and they insist that, on the contrary, who they think they are is who they should think they are. It is who they are.

This is an incredibly naive, in my view.

As though everything “out there” revolved around our own point of view. Instead of how it almost certainly really is: the other way around.

“I” and “other” isn’t an objective delineation, it’s a psychological construction. If somebody feels their leg isn’t part of them, it’s not. Or if they feel their security blanket is an essential part of their identity, then it is.

Egos are funny things. I’d recommend reading “Being Wrong” by Kathryn Schultz on this topic.

Good point. Human psychology plays a potent role in how we come to understand both ourselves and our relationships with others. In particular, psychological defense mechanisms. These exist to keep “I” anchored to a more or less stable sense of reality.

In other words, we tell ourselves that, unlike some, the behaviors we choose are immune to the eddies of contingency, chance and change; instead, they reflect only what we know we ought to do because that is always the right thing to do—the rational thing to do. And we are always both rational and right.

And while Kathyrn Schulz circumnaviages these psychological canyons with the best of them, there are two additonal points to be considered.

The first revolves around the not inconsiderable chunks of our lives that simply do not lend themselves readily to either right or wrong answers. And it is always easier to convince yourself that you are right if no one is able to convince everyone else that you are wrong. And this is so regarding crucial things like our moral, poltical and aesthetic values.

For example, John is adamently convinced he is right that abortion is the killing of a human being—and, therefore, is profoundly immoral. But Jane is just as adamently convinced that forcing women to give birth against their will relegates them socially, politically and economically to second class citizens.

Now, in part, they embrace these values because it anchors them emotionally and psychologically. But they also embrace them because the arguments are reasonable. John cannot definitively refute Jane anymore than Jane can definitively refute John.

The second point revolves around understanding human identity as “dasein”.

Consider:

As Martin Heidegger proposed, we all come into the world “thrown” adventitiously here rather than there. It’s purely arbitrary. And because we landed here in one particular historical, cultural and experiential context instead of there in another this can have a profound impact on how we come to understand “I” and the world “I” inhabits. After all, for 10 to 12 years [or more] as children we are veritably brainwashed to view ourselves and the world around us as others indoctrinate us to. And this indoctrination is all the more effective because it is often motivated by love, right?

Think of it like this:

Suppose, hypothetically, as infants, Mary and Mark lose their parents in an automobile accident. Mary is sent to live with her Uncle Tom and Mark is sent to live with his Aunt Tina.

Now, suppose Tom and his family are extremely conservative both politically and religiously. Mary is brought up to be the same. Tina and her own household on the other hand are extremely liberal and staunch atheists. Mark is brought up to be the same.

Finally, imagine that one day Mary and Mark find out about each other and agree to meet. Their conversation gets around to abortion. Mary is adamently opposed to it, Tom is just as adamently in favor of it.

See the point? How Mary and Mark view their identity [and the identities of others] is deeply embedded in their upbringing.

How then do we extract that from the way in which we come to understand the world as adults such that we know for certain where I begins and they end?

And even if this could be done, there is no way to know for certain whether abortion is right or wrong.