The philosophical self
Hello Michi
I am already clearing the psychological self/ego and other psychological descriptions.
What is this philosophical “I” that exists as an object in the spiritual world? Various psychedelic drugs (mushrooms, ayahuasca, etc.) cause a person to disconnect from themselves. Brain scans show a cessation of blood flow to a certain area (called the default zone, where memories and the sense of self are located, among other things) and the person experiences a kind of mystical event in which he does not feel himself at all, but as part of a greater whole (this is described as “in absolute love” or “with God”). If this is so, then the “I” is experienced only when it is connected to a certain area of the brain, and if not, then it is no longer experienced. It is important to note that when a person is in a psychedelic trip, he does not feel himself *at all*, and the feeling is that everything is one and there are no separations. If so, does the “I” really exist? What is this I without thought, choice, conscience, intuition in general, and the sense of self?
If the self exists, then how would you explain what happens within the psychedelic experience? Is the self “inside” the experience? Or maybe it’s not there and the person disconnects from their self for a certain period of time?
I hope my questions are clear, and if not I will clarify what is needed.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When a person is in such a psychedelic experience, their sense of self disappears completely and there is no feeling of being in the moment of attributes in this experience.
If this is so, some argue that the self is just an illusion and in fact when part of the brain is not working there is no self anymore, because there is no feeling of being in the moment of attributes.
In short, our intuition that there is a possessor of attributes disappears in a psychedelic experience, and this is (perhaps) an indication that the self is an illusion that the brain creates, and when the brain is not working (in certain areas) the illusion ceases.
What I was trying to say is that even if we claim that within the experience the same self still remains, there is no content in it and it is just words, because there is no sense of self there but a sense of complete mixing with all other things, without separation at all.
So, the question is: is a psychedelic experience an indication that there is no self? How would you explain this experience and the fact that everything is there together without separation?
According to this, when I close my eyes I don't see, and therefore there is no evidence? The self has no content. The self is a framework to which the contents belong. Like the properties of a thing that belong to an object. It, for its part, is the bearer of the properties.
I understand. If that is so, how would you explain the psychedelic experience? In your analogy to vision, we would say that a blind person is physiologically impaired and therefore cannot recognize the vision that exists. So would you say that a person who is in a psychedelic experience is physiologically impaired and therefore cannot recognize the self that exists? I assume that you are familiar with the claim that ”all is one” (this is what is experienced under the influence of drugs). If we combine this claim with the claim (which, to the best of my knowledge, you accept) that subjective experience is something that cannot be argued about (if I am in pain, then no one can tell me that I am wrong), then we arrive at the claim that there is no self and all is one (and the feeling that the self exists is nothing but an illusion) is just as true as the claim that there is a self, and it cannot be objected to, is that not so?
As long as the claim is not made that someone who is in a psychedelic experience experiences a physiological defect (like blindness) or a mental defect (hallucinations as in schizophrenia), I do not see how one can defend the position that there is an I who is the basis on which the properties exist, and that this is the truth, and not what is experienced under the influence of the drug.
And in addition - even if we say that it is a hallucination and a physiological/mental defect (similar to blindness), what do we base this on? After all, the difference is purely which area of the brain is active and nothing more.
I don't understand the statement that everything is one. It sounds to me like a collection of words devoid of content. A person who is in a psychedelic experience is closed off to certain things and exposed to other things. Like sleep. I don't see what needs explaining here. It's not a defect but a specific condition.
And as for the area in the brain, it is not relevant at all. There are prohibitions in the brain that operate in every mental action of ours. Does this mean that there are no mental actions? They are done through the brain (the direction of influence can be from the mental to the brain or vice versa).
I completely understand what you are saying, and yet there are 2 claims that require explanation in my opinion:
1. You gave the example of sleep, but a person who claims that what he saw in sleep is reality, we will tell him that this is not true because in dreams we do not see reality (usually if we take a cautious approach) but rather experience something unreal. It is clear that the mental state of dreaming is real, but the content of the dream is not real and does not reflect what is in reality. Therefore, this can also be argued about psychedelics: the experience is an experience, as you said, but the content, the information about reality that exists within the experience, is either real information or not. So is the experience of “All One” realistic, or not (like in a dream)?
2. And now to the heart of the matter: It is impossible to explain what the color red is to a blind person, and in the same way, people who have experienced psychedelics will argue, it is impossible to explain what the “all is one” they experienced. Therefore, we can introduce the relevance of the brain here: We know that a blind person does not see reality (meaning that reality is not black and without objects, but full of different objects) because he lacks a certain part of the brain (or a certain connectivity between parts of the brain). The fMRI scans that were done showed unusually high connectivity between parts of the brain during the psychedelic experience, and this may mean that they understand something that we do not. How do you deal with the following claim that can come from people who have had the experience (who, by the way, most of them are essentially talking about the same things): “Just as you can't explain to a blind person what red is, I can't explain to you what “all one” is, but just as you are sure that the red you see exists, I (and many others like me) know what we are talking about when we say “all one” and it is definitely reality. To know, you will have to experience it”.
I will add and point out that even in the context of morality, we understand what morality is by observing it. And whoever doesn't understand what we are talking about, we will define him as a psychopath. And yet, we can never explain to him what good is. So, the same claim can come from the mouths of people who have experimented with psychedelics.
1. Right. What is the question?
2. I explained that I don't understand what "everyone" means. Now you say you can't explain it to me either. So there's no point in discussing it.
Indeed, this discussion is going nowhere. I've exhausted it.
I agree with the feeling of exhaustion of the discussion, because of the dead end of undefined terms.
However, I will only add that in order to talk about the same feeling, one must experience it, just as one must experience it to understand what red is. Therefore, if there is any significance to the discussion, it is on this point: the claim is that there is knowledge that is experienced there that can only be known from the very experience.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer