I do think it is the other way around, self-consciousness arises in noticing we are. Empathy at the very least, which overrides threat detection in our agency-detection bias, and allows social learning to occur in the first place.
"We are: and not "I am", at least it's a figure/ground issue, but evolution works on the individual necker-cube first and the inter-group selection necker-cube second.
We still cannot see the world, like-fish-in-water-who-do-not-notice-the-water.
If your world's institutions are primarily focused in individuals then you will cut the world up that way and wonder where the bits originate, when really, it is a complex mess, and the bits are the figures what you notice, and the ground you walk on or the water you swim in is not perceived at all.
Wow, I love this, on so many levels. I love how the illustration brings your theory to life, and I love how the whole thing demonstrates a level of depth that's possible here beyond just "hey chattyg, ghiblify this pic of me and my dog on the beach".
Thoughts on ETOC: ETOC depends on the idea that the 'interior voice' was first experienced as an exterior voice, that self-consciousness was first experienced as 'other consciousness' before the epiphany that the other was the self. I forget the exact terminology that you use but I think that I have fairly captured the gist. My problem is that the 'interior other' that is identified with the divine, or sometimes demonic, or sometimes other things entirely, is not identical with the 'interior self'. Many people today experience them both and distinguish the two with little difficulty.
The interior self is discursive, malleable to our will(and where it is not malleable it is resistant to the degree that the will is divided strongly implying self as identity), seems to function based on information available to the self, and be influenced by the self's thoughts and feelings. If I experienced the interior self as an exterior self I suspect that I would still recognise it as self.
The interior other is intuitive and opaque, or its opaqueness makes it seem intuitive rather than discursive. Much of human history is, I suspect, grounded in attempts to make the interior other less alien, more transparent. Aren't most religious preferences at least partially controlled by the individual's judgment on whether or not the religion accurately explains the interior other? Even when informed by religion or some other explanation, the interior other never seems less alien. Men believe in an arbitrary demanding deity because they experience an arbitrary interior other which makes demands. Men seek out mysticism to explain the primary mystery of another that is immediately present to their own self as nothing else is.
So, I said that the self would be recognizable as self even if exterior, but the other is recognized as other even when interior, thus I conclude that they are not identical.
Way cool. Kudos brother.
I do think it is the other way around, self-consciousness arises in noticing we are. Empathy at the very least, which overrides threat detection in our agency-detection bias, and allows social learning to occur in the first place.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/social-learning-101
and very recently https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/reading-joseph-henrich-one
"We are: and not "I am", at least it's a figure/ground issue, but evolution works on the individual necker-cube first and the inter-group selection necker-cube second.
"necker cube" discussed at https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/robert-ardrey-and-richard-dawkins
Potentially same sex order however (See Ellen Dissanayake as example ---must do post).
And the pool is likely the sky pool of the world, a self heaven if you will.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/the-sky-pool
We still cannot see the world, like-fish-in-water-who-do-not-notice-the-water.
If your world's institutions are primarily focused in individuals then you will cut the world up that way and wonder where the bits originate, when really, it is a complex mess, and the bits are the figures what you notice, and the ground you walk on or the water you swim in is not perceived at all.
Wow, I love this, on so many levels. I love how the illustration brings your theory to life, and I love how the whole thing demonstrates a level of depth that's possible here beyond just "hey chattyg, ghiblify this pic of me and my dog on the beach".
Thoughts on ETOC: ETOC depends on the idea that the 'interior voice' was first experienced as an exterior voice, that self-consciousness was first experienced as 'other consciousness' before the epiphany that the other was the self. I forget the exact terminology that you use but I think that I have fairly captured the gist. My problem is that the 'interior other' that is identified with the divine, or sometimes demonic, or sometimes other things entirely, is not identical with the 'interior self'. Many people today experience them both and distinguish the two with little difficulty.
The interior self is discursive, malleable to our will(and where it is not malleable it is resistant to the degree that the will is divided strongly implying self as identity), seems to function based on information available to the self, and be influenced by the self's thoughts and feelings. If I experienced the interior self as an exterior self I suspect that I would still recognise it as self.
The interior other is intuitive and opaque, or its opaqueness makes it seem intuitive rather than discursive. Much of human history is, I suspect, grounded in attempts to make the interior other less alien, more transparent. Aren't most religious preferences at least partially controlled by the individual's judgment on whether or not the religion accurately explains the interior other? Even when informed by religion or some other explanation, the interior other never seems less alien. Men believe in an arbitrary demanding deity because they experience an arbitrary interior other which makes demands. Men seek out mysticism to explain the primary mystery of another that is immediately present to their own self as nothing else is.
So, I said that the self would be recognizable as self even if exterior, but the other is recognized as other even when interior, thus I conclude that they are not identical.