I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations of Global Ethics (ethical, nature, society)

[Gaylenwoof]

In his book I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations of Global Ethics, Daniel Kolak gives extremely detailed, deep, and provocative arguments for the idea that we are all, in fact, the same person. The basic idea is that there are obviously borders between personalities (I can't remember your experiences, I can't use my will to raise your arm, I like chocolate, you might hate it, etc.), but these boarders are not absolute metaphysical boundaries. Kolak shows that, for every boundary that separates your individual experiences from other people's experiences, there is a way to dissolve this boundary without losing your essential identity. The crucial aspect of your existence that, ultimately, you really care about when you think about your survival in the future is the aspect that survives in each and every case when we "dissolve the border" between you and other people.

One way to think of this is to imagine that Reality is, in essence, a "Mind" with Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), which is now called "Dissociative Identity Disorder" (DID). The central intuitive idea is that if you have DID, you can theoretically re-integrate your various "personalities", and the reason that you can do this is because, ultimately, your really are the one-and-same person beneath all of these personalities. The borders between your personalities are divisions created by amnesia. You simple "forget", or never realize, that you are actually the same identity underlying each of your multiple personalities. These borders play the role of barriers so long as they are in place, but they are not absolute metaphysical barriers because they can, in principle, be dissolved. The feeling of a dissolving border is basically the feeling of waking up to remember events you had forgotten, or waking up to discover that you are a "higher-level" being than you thought (somewhat like awakening from a dream to realize that you are not limited to the personality or situation you felt limited to while you were within the dream).

The main question I have is this:
(1) Suppose, for a moment, that Kolak is correct, and suppose, for the sake of argument, that some powerful combination of logical arguments and empirical evidence has convinced you that he is correct: If you did become convinced of the "one person" view, what difference would it make to you? Would this perspective contribute to a greater feeling of empathy or compassion? Would it change how you act toward other people?

And some related questions:

(2) Does Kolak's position seem plausible to you? Or does it seem so absurd, confused, or so downright incoherent that it's really just nonsense.

(3) If you understand Kolak's position, and you agree that it is a logical possibility, but you simply don't believe that it is likely to be true, why don't you believe it likely to be true?

(4) If you do believe that we are, in some sense, "one person", how did you come to this belief? And what do you think are some good arguments in favor of it?

(5) Kolak thinks that the world would be a better place if this became the dominant paradigm of belief worldwide. Whether the "One Self" position is actually true, or not, do you think that people, in general, would behave better if they feel deeply that it were true?

[Arach Angle]

I am not really interested in kolak. I find people like Washington, Lincoln and Sherman far better for society.

for me.
nasa' discovery that the fabric of space is "something" sealed the deal for me. loosely analogous to a three dimensional screen framework we all "live on". toss in biology, chemistry, and physics ... and poof ... a large set of feedback systems every ware. I don't know of one volume in space that does not have them. let me know if you find one.

[Miss Hepburn]

Gaylenwoof...well gee, instead of wanting others to postulate...why
not meditate and experience Oneness for yourself...or
I suppose, with this intention, drop some acid? :smile:

Even if some gave a great intellectual point of view...it still
leaves one 'stale', empty...not truly knowing.
Just my thought. Nothing like direct experience!

Added ...and this is either a belief...which what is 'that'?
and then you have knowing from a direct-up-close and personal
experience within inside yourself...and there is no 'proof for that...except
looking into a friend's eyes you knew before this awakening or revelation
or Divine Insight.

And another PS...logic has nothing to do with it...not worldly logic.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Gaylenwoof...well gee, instead of wanting others to postulate...why
not meditate and experience Oneness for yourself...or
I suppose, with this intention, drop some acid? :smile:

I do meditate, but the feeling of (or the "lived experience of the full comprehension of") the Oneness I'm referring to does not come automatically with meditation (at least it has not for me). I believe that Oneness is the explanation of the nature of sentient experience, but this belief is based on logic and science mixed with introspective phenomenological investigation and meditative insights. A direct divine spiritual "ah-ha" type of insight into the Oneness seems to elude me. Acid and shrooms (a few decades back before the stupid "war on drugs" insanity ensued) provided me with a few interesting insights, but nothing that I would call a direct insight into the Oneness that I'm describing. But, in any case, even if I had experienced some mystical insight, this would not mean much to anyone else. Plenty of people are running around talking about their mystical insights - people have been doing this since the beginning of human civilization - but this doesn't provide much motivation for the masses of humanity to adopt a new social paradigm. Which brings me back to my opening question: Even if the vast majority of people did come to deeply believe in the Oneness of consciousness via meditation or drug trips, would it change the general way in which people interact with each other? Would people, in general, become more compassionate? Would crime rates drop? Would warfare and poverty become novelties described in history books? For quick reference, let's just refer to a "Paradigm of Compassion" (POC).

There is a tangled nest of questions here:
(1) If the vast majority of humanity had a mystical Oneness experience via meditation, would this result in a POC?
(2) If the vast majority of humanity had a mystical Oneness experience via drug trips, would this result in a POC?
(3) If the vast majority of humanity had a mystical Oneness experience via the rational "ah-ha" of logical and scientific understanding, would this result in a POC?
(4) If the vast majority of humanity came to sincerely believe in Oneness on the basis of rational arguments and scientific evidence (i.e., without directly/mystically feeling the Oneness), would this result in a POC?

Even if some gave a great intellectual point of view...it still leaves one 'stale', empty...not truly knowing.

Based on this, I suppose you'd answer "no" to (4) and probably to (3) as well? But what about (1) and/or (2)?

And another PS...logic has nothing to do with it...not worldly logic.

I would not say that logic has nothing to do with it. I would say that logic is an important aspect of insight and wisdom, but it is not the only aspect. The subjective/qualitative aspects of feelings are also forms of insight and wisdom.

[mordant]

All I can say is that I agree with Sartre: "Hell is Other People". And I am agreeing with it as he meant it: you cannot complete the puzzle of who you are without taking on board the judgments of others. Frankly I have come to find the burden of those judgments tiresome in my old age. Not only am I not the man I used to be, it would seem I never WAS the man I used to be.

So maybe we are all fragments of an Overmind or something but in practice I feel this violates basic human freedoms -- the freedom of association, and the right to be left alone primary among them. When you are at the mercy of other's perceptions, biases and assumptions, on top of being responsible to your actual actions and motivations, it is difficult to feel all warm and fuzzy about becoming One with everyone else ;-)

That doesn't make Kolak wrong, but if he's right, it makes him the bearer of ill tidings in my view.

So to answer (1), I think it would be a depressing realization. It is hard enough to be close to a handful of Special Others, and to selectively take on the existential pain of others and act to ease it, without feeling like I'm a hopelessly broken shard of incompleteness on top of it all.

As for (2), it seems plausible enough that I don't reject it out of hand, despite it not being a concept that pleases me.

(3) -- I'm on the fence. Despite being an introvert, and a bit burned out on life, I feel kinship with others and seek connection with them just the same. Almost can't help myself. So ... I provisionally reject the concept mainly because I don't see it as actionable and in particularly don't see it as falsifiable. It's rather like most conceptions of god. How would you go about (dis)proving it?

(4) I can't think of a really good argument in favor of it, but then I recognize my own bias.

(5) It cuts both ways. When I vacationed in (primarily the former North) Vietnam a few years ago, I was struck by a sense I got of a sort of "hive mind" among the Vietnamese. On the one hand they are all for one, one for all, giving, from a Western perspective, relatively short shrift to personal goals and needs. The group has primacy. But I didn't sense much joy in it. It is just the way things are to them. And the downside is, as we discovered when we poked a stick in their "nest" during the war (which they call the American War just as we call it the Vietnam War, except they add "of aggression" onto it), when they perceive an existential threat to the hive, they will march to their death and dismemberment by the tens of thousands without seeming regard for personal loss or familial welfare. I am not sure whether to admire that or be horrified by it. Certainly I encountered plenty of aging maimed fighters who evidence neither self pity, bitterness, regret nor peace about their lot in life; it just is what it is. They don't seem to hold grudges ... Americans are widely liked and even admired, at least outwardly ... and we were treated with great kindness on several occasions. But they seem to actively and fairly universally hate the Chinese who are walking all over them concerning border issues, so I sense this kindness can flip when conditions are right.

I guess my point is that I don't see sweetness, light, peace and joy as the inevitable direction one would necessarily go if you were convinced of some concept of oneness with others. Maybe it would have to be the right concept of oneness, I don't know.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In his book I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations of Global Ethics, Daniel Kolak gives extremely detailed, deep, and provocative arguments for the idea that we are all, in fact, the same person.
The basic idea is that there are obviously borders between personalities (I can't remember your experiences, I can't use my will to raise your arm, I like chocolate, you might hate it, etc.), but these boarders are not absolute metaphysical boundaries.
Kolak shows that, for every boundary that separates your individual experiences from other people's experiences, there is a way to dissolve this boundary without losing your essential identity.

The crucial aspect of your existence that, ultimately, you really care about when you think about your survival in the future is the aspect that survives in each and every case when we "dissolve the border" between you and other people.

I do agree in relation to Global Ethics the boundaries of the individual selves must dissolve into the collective self.
In terms of effectiveness of the above, the question is the approach to it.

I have not read Kolak's book so I do not know how he had presented his hypothesis in detail.

What is critical is how to present it is such a way to reconcile from maintaining one necessary individual identity to a dissolved-identity.
To maintain such a range of awareness, mindfulness and consciousness will entail the development of the necessary neural circuits to sustain it. The question is how do we do that.

In addition to maintain the full systems of moral and ethics we will need to establish a full framework and System of moral and ethics to put the whole system into motion with its effective controls in place.

I am not sure how Kolak presented his views but a literature review will reveal Kant had already done quite sufficiently what I had mentioned above in a very logical, rational and systematic manner. Perhaps there is no need to invent the wheel in this case if we refer to Kant's moral and ethical system.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by mordant

So to answer (1), I think it would be a depressing realization. It is hard enough to be close to a handful of Special Others, and to selectively take on the existential pain of others and act to ease it, without feeling like I'm a hopelessly broken shard of incompleteness on top of it all.

That reminds me: I think Arnold Zuboff had a similar negative reaction to his version of basically the same idea. In fact, I would recommend Zuboff's article on "The Logic of Experience" to anyone who is interested in the arguments underlying the "One Self" view. Kolak's mammoth book is incredibly long and tedious, but Zuboff's article is relatively short and entertaining. Zuboff's articles was my first Western-style introduction to the One Self idea back in the early 1990s. Zuboff's article is available in a few different places, but I suspect that one of these links will probably be the most easily accessible:

( http://philpapers.org/rec/ZUBOST )

or

One self: The logic of experience
Arnold Zuboff
Inquiry 33 (1):39-68 (1990)

BTW: For me, the idea of "One Self" does not seem depressing at all. In fact, I find it to be a rather beautiful concept.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by mordant

I guess my point is that I don't see sweetness, light, peace and joy as the inevitable direction one would necessarily go if you were convinced of some concept of oneness with others. Maybe it would have to be the right concept of oneness, I don't know.

I find it interesting that a feeling of Oneness via some sort of meditative enlightenment is associated with profound joy and often leads people toward a life of extraordinary compassion, whereas being convinced of essentially the same idea through the power of logical argumentation can seem depressing to some people, and apparently won't increase feelings of compassion to much of any extent.

[ukrkoz]

Yes, we are all the same person.
1. follow the creator path. Creator is in all of us and in everything else. Hence, everything is bearing same mark.
2. follow the materialism path. Big Bang gave birth to everything. Hence, everything came from same seed and bears mark of it.
3. follow our path. Consciousness is the ultimate reality and everything is conscious in the amount of consciousness allotted to it. Nature is conscious as its functions only and intelligent side in conscious that it is conscious. As there is only one consciousness, everything bears mark and allotted measure of same consciousness.
Whichever way you turn this boat, we are all one, you are me as I am you and we are all together.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I find it interesting that a feeling of Oneness via some sort of meditative enlightenment is associated with profound joy and often leads people toward a life of extraordinary compassion, whereas being convinced of essentially the same idea through the power of logical argumentation can seem depressing to some people, and apparently won't increase feelings of compassion to much of any extent.

I don't know that a Vietnamese is subsumed into the Collective by logical argumentation, it's entirely culturally mediated so far as I know. It is a form of embracing oneness without kum-by-ah however, as is an intellectual approach, as, doubtless, are other approaches that exist.

I should think that a positive emotional sense of non-duality is probably a horse of a different color because it can use positive reinforcement to train the mind toward more inclusiveness and loving-kindness and the like. But I don't know that "we are all the same person" is required to explain that either. Nor it is precluded, I suppose.