let's get straight to it
the 'self' is best seen as a construct of
consciousness
it is, if you like, - 'objectively speaking'
(of the point of view of a taxonomist) - necessary -
for the basic function of consciousness
it is a parameter
that on the one hand defines the world - 'not self'
also - it posits 'place' - in the space of consciousness
the 'self' is a place
a place of focus
- of and for consciousness
the self - is a necessary point
can we imagine consciousness without this posit -
perhaps -
it would be by definition - undefined
(it would not know itself - or the world -
there could be no relation between the two
it would simply be another feature of the world -
of the landscape -
I can't see in what sense it would be 'observable'
the idea seems nonsensical
and is thus
and argument by default to the view that -
all consciousness - must be self conscious -
if so then
the positing of self - is but the fact of consciousness
anyway
the 'self' as I am presenting it - is - a logical space
the characteristic of its 'content' I will suggest is -
fluidity
we are talking here of conceptions -
conceptions - descriptions - of who I am
this is finally a very particular matter
particular - though -within certain contingent -
'universal' states of being
here is where the whole weight of science bears down
I cannot be anything - have concepts - descriptions
that are not of my nature
my nature - though not fixed - in any sense -
is defined by 'given' regularities - regularities that
may not persist - in any necessary sense - but have a
contingent stability
so this if you like - the second level of self
the next level - I call personal
conceptions of myself that have sense only given the
history of myself -
they may have logical characteristics similar to others -
(must have) - but are particular to my existence is
space / time - a unique 'event'
but even at this level - there is no 'fixity'
the characteristic - yet again is fluidity
