451. Sense and self

Suppose you ask yourself who you are.There would seem to be two ‘I’s, ‘I’ and

‘me’, subject and object, the one who asks the question and the one it is about. How can that

be? The eye does not see itself.

You try to identify yourself by properties, aspects, acts, ways you present yourself.

It reminds me of linguistics, the relation between sense and reference, as proposed by Frege,

but with a twist. Reference is what an expression refers to, sense is the way in which that is

done. ‘The way in which something is given, ‘die Art des Gegebenseins’ according to Frege’s

German. I gave that the twist: the way in which reference is conducted, by bundling together

 what one sees. That is how someone else identifies you. Like bundling sticks into a bridge.

You add motives, reasons for what you did, but you are seldom truthful in this, and grope in

the dark. Choices are regularly made subconsciously, without you being aware of the reason,

and you paint yourself pretty with rationalisations afterwards. You need the impressions of

others to face the real reasons.

Thus, you need others to know yourself. That chimes with the role, and the importance, of

resonance, discussed in the preceding item in this blog. Talking helps, in forming thoughts

about yourself, but you need someone else to challenge and try and correct that. That is the

role of a psychiatrist, or a friend or family.

There is no fixed or given self to know. Self is being, becoming. ‘Knowing yourself’ is

Impossible. That would be like swimming without moving. One does not have an identity, but

creates one, on the move, as work in progress. Not only discovering but developing yourself.

The question thus is not ‘who am I’, but ‘how do I become’, making choices and taking

responsibility for them. There are risks involved.

What is the sense of life? Its meaning? As proposed in a previous item in this blog: Pleasure 

and purpose. Purpose: contributing to something bigger than yourself. Pleasure: utilizing and

developing one’s talents in the process. With an eye to others, and being open to them, lest

you make a contribution that is not a contribution, does not mean anything to anyone. That is

the role of ‘kairos’ in rhetoric, as described in a previous item in this blog. But what, then, is

the role of personal conviction and perseverance in it? That is still admirable, and missing the

target, getting no response and appreciation, is part of the risk of authenticity. That is where

the importance lies of sense, in finding out your potential and purpose in opposition and

criticism by others, ensuring kairos.

The good life is not a series of unconnected episodes but a sequential, connected, coherent

whole, a development, like a building. Each moment has the freedom of choice in the next

step in building oneself.

According to Kierkegaard life has three potential stages or levels. First the aesthetic of

experience, consumption, diversion, with which one crams limited life. this yields the

acceleration of life discussed before, in item 449 of this blog, which produces boredom, as

Schopenhauer also claimed: one always wants more and if ever one is satisfied, this produces

boredom, and alienation: an experience of letting oneself be dragged along in what one does not really want. This is a sign of crisis, which can lead on to what Kierkegaard calls the ethical, as giving purpose and direction to your individual life. This does not relinquish pleasure, but sets a context to it, in purpose. For Kierkegaard there is a third level, of religion, but I do not yet know what to do with that. For the moment I think we do not need it for the good life.