Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's not a physical object, of course. Maybe my idea of 'real' is a little more expansive.
Understood (and physical objects on an internet forum are a bit difficult; though visual metaphors always seem easiest). Nobody thinks the libido is a physical object—is it a “thing” of any kind? (An entity, a being, a substance?)
Does your idea of reality include “tree” (Plato), or just “that tree (e.g., a Norwegian Spruce) over there” (Aristotle). Is “redness” real? Is “red” a useful term for a range of visible wavelengths? Is “self” real, or is “self” just a useful term for a complex of psycho-physical processes? (Rather the way that "tree", “red”, or “libido” are useful terms for conceptual generalizations?)
I don’t think that you can (problems of an internet forum aside) show me “red” or “tree” or “self”. I don’t think that you can demonstrate to me “sound” or “silence” or “dream” or “love”—only particular manifestations to which we apply such terms for purposes of conceptual generalization. I don’t think that you can demonstrate to me something called “self”. You might demonstrate to me your ability to recall (memory); you might be able to demonstrate to me what forms of “somebody-ness” training you have undergone since childhood to generate the “somebody self” that you think you are (as well as aspects of such training that you have subsequently rejected); you can demonstrate to me your intelligence and reasoning skills (which you have on here, amply and often); etc., etc., etc. But the “self” that does all those things—that there is a separate entity that does all those things? I don’t think that you can find that for “yourself” (or experience
that for "yourself" ), let alone demonstrate it.Strip away all the re-membering (hyphen deliberate), all the thinking, all the imagining, all the doing, all the feeling—all the
going-on—and I think you’ll be hard-pressed to experience a “self” doing all those doings.
And then you can glimpse the Zen notion of “emptiness” (which is also not “something” ).
Substance versus Process
Perhaps, forget substance categories. Think of processes. There are goings-on—not “things” going on, nor "things" behind the clustered goings-on (you can get an idea here how our subject-predicate (subject-verb-object) language is so difficult here). So “you” are just stuff going on—including consciousness going-on about other stuff going on (the inherent reflexivity/recursiveness also makes language difficult). There is no “self” that is doing all that going-on that is your life.
So, self can be a handy fiction—just like “libido”. And the goings-on are real (from a Zen point of view): happening is happening. But there are no inherently existential substances to which anything is happening (to borrow from blackbeetle). There is no inherent existent “self”
to which happenings happen.