Are you responsible for your physical vehicle's limitations?

[Bro Dave]

We are each limited and gifted. We did not create, request or define who we are and the physical and personality traits we have to work with. Is it therefore reasonable we all be held accountable for our accomplishments we may achieve or attocities we may commit?

Bro Dave

[Dilettante]

A simple belief that the innate goodness of natural man was superior to the artificial goodness of sophisticated man. (a noble savage)

And probably just a myth.

"Self-improvement" as a concept is tricky. How does one improve oneself, and how do you know when it happens? Happiness as a goal, for example, doesn't pass the serial killer test.

I agree. I am in favor of self-improvement, but it's a relative concept. How can we determine what an acceptable level is, and when we have had enough self-improvement? However, the concept of self improvement is not nearly as confusing as that of "quality of life". While it is easier to measure "quantity of life" (the average human lifespan is more or less predictable), how are we to measure "quality of life"? By how fast we can run or how high we can jump?
As for happiness, we probably have more important goals in life, and maybe pursuing those goals is the only thing which can bring us happiness in the end as a surprise side dish. As someone said, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

[ENIGMA]

If the driver is not in control of a section, who/what is controlling the section, if anybody?

If a section can independently function without a driver then what distinction is there between a section with a driver and a section without a driver?

etc..

If one was to agree with this notion of duality couldn't this then be attributed to a limitation of the vehicle? I suppose frontal lobe damage might be a better example which would , by changing the personality of the person, appear to not only change the vehicle in some way but also to replace the driver.

Alas, no, if anything it shows the necessity of the vehicle and the superfluousity (sounds better than superflousness at any rate) of the driver. A vehicle section which functions equivalently whether there is a driver or not would imply that any hypothetical driver would have no or, at best, minimal influence on what the vehicle section does. In the case of the corpus callosum severing, it would appear that each side is just as functional as it was before the severing of the corpus callosum, with the only caveat being that each side cannot send signals directly back and forth to each other. A dualist would thus be hard pressed to determine which side of the split the driver is on without considering that either:

1) The driver splits when the vehicle splits, and by analogy the driver dies when the vehicle dies.

2) The vehicle functions equivalently with or without a driver, leading to the prospect of a driver not doing any driving at all but just being a spectator.

Either of these prospects would lead to numerous complications in current standard dualistic models, such as the prospect of an afterlife, final judgement, etc. From a non-dualistic perspective these matters resolve themselves readily, namely the driver and vehicle are one and the same and so obviously when one splits the other does as well, etc.

[Curious]

If the driver is not in control of a section, who/what is controlling the section, if anybody?

If a section can independently function without a driver then what distinction is there between a section with a driver and a section without a driver?

.. if anything it shows the necessity of the vehicle and the superfluousity (sounds better than superflousness at any rate) of the driver. A vehicle section which functions equivalently whether there is a driver or not would imply that any hypothetical driver would have no or, at best, minimal influence on what the vehicle section does.
1) The driver splits when the vehicle splits, and by analogy the driver dies when the vehicle dies.

2) The vehicle functions equivalently with or without a driver, leading to the prospect of a driver not doing any driving at all but just being a spectator.

While I see your point I would offer another example, say a car with an onboard computer . A sudden drop in power by the engine may show as a behaviour of the car(ie. it slows down). The onboard computer may act to rectify this by increasing, for example, fuel flow to the engine.Now imagine that the computer is somehow disconnected or damaged. The fact that the drop in engine power may be due to a fuel leak, incorrect fuel mixture or numerous other factors may be unknown. Neither the engine or computer realise the state of the other but the driver will still notice a reduction of power. The driver may be completely unaware of the cause but due to the obvious change in behaviour of the vehicle knows that something is wrong. This is why I used the example of frontal lobe damage, as this, rather than confusing the issue by clouding the origin of the external stimuli, seems to suggest that the same stimuli could lead the driver in completely different directions in respect to the direction he/she drives.

[bernee51]

As for happiness, we probably have more important goals in life, and maybe pursuing those goals is the only thing which can bring us happiness in the end as a surprise side dish. As someone said, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

I would suggest that longing for 'happiness' is in man's nature - it is not something we choose. The things we choose are those things which we believe will lead towards happiness. Happiness (or the pursuit thereof) is not a by-product of our choices it is the driving force.

Self-impovement implies a 'self' that needs improvement. If 'I' can judge that something needs improvement it must then be an object in my awareness. If it is an object in my awareness can it be the'Self' - or is it a perception of my sense of an individual self - and thus not real.

Perhaps all we can ever 'improve' are the perceptions of our 'self' - be they the physical or egoic.

Our Self is complete and cannot be improved upon.

[Curious]

Self-impovement implies a 'self' that needs improvement. If 'I' can judge that something needs improvement it must then be an object in my awareness. If it is an object in my awareness can it be the'Self' - or is it a perception of my sense of an individual self - and thus not real.

Perhaps all we can ever 'improve' are the perceptions of our 'self' - be they the physical or egoic.

Our Self is complete and cannot be improved upon.

The term Self is misused in much the same way as the term personality. If somebody was to say X has a good personality, then no doubt many people would assume that the person was inherently good when infact it is only the "appearance of" good. Personality is the mask we hide behind and not the true us. For this reason some people rather than embarking upon a course of "Self improvement" see it more as "overcoming of the pseudo-Self".

[ST88]

Self-impovement implies a 'self' that needs improvement. If 'I' can judge that something needs improvement it must then be an object in my awareness. If it is an object in my awareness can it be the'Self' - or is it a perception of my sense of an individual self - and thus not real.

Perhaps all we can ever 'improve' are the perceptions of our 'self' - be they the physical or egoic.

Our Self is complete and cannot be improved upon.

The term Self is misused in much the same way as the term personality.

I have noticed the pop-culture dilemma of "self-improvement" as one of either change or acceptance. These opposing attitudes have always baffled me. Do I find my place in this world, or do I try and fit myself somewhere in this world? Judging by the messages I receive from various pieces of pseudo-literature/theater, it could be either or both at any given time.

If somebody was to say X has a good personality, then no doubt many people would assume that the person was inherently good when infact it is only the "appearance of" good. Personality is the mask we hide behind and not the true us. For this reason some people rather than embarking upon a course of "Self improvement" see it more as "overcoming of the pseudo-Self".

"Good personality" means something totally different to me. It means that a person is an interesting person, not necessarily good or bad, just interesting to talk to or be around.

I don't know that I agree that personality is a mask, however. I think I know what you mean, but I would split the personality into the inward and the outward. That is, everyone has a face they show to others and a personal face they show to themselves. But even the outward face is a reflection of that person's personality -- and is a combination of belief of what others would like to see and/or expect of them, and the fundamental way the person views the world. In my opinion, it is only because we are playing an interpersonal game of "selves" that we all initially believe each others' outward selves are the same as our inward selves. I don't think this is any more conscious than the composition of our outward selves -- these are just pleasure/pain response behaviors and survival strategies that we accumulate (also unconsciously) in order to get through the day. We make the decision whether or not to get to know the other person beyond the outward personality, but often it is precisely because this part of the personality is the most compatible with what we would like to believe about ourselves, that we don't go any farther.

To paraphrase you, Curious, self-improvement may be an exercise in overcoming the outward self -- the only addition I would make is that the outward self is perhaps not as consciously constructed as we would like to believe.

[Curious]

"Good personality" means something totally different to me. It means that a person is an interesting person, not necessarily good or bad, just interesting to talk to or be around.

I don't know that I agree that personality is a mask, however. I think I know what you mean, but I would split the personality into the inward and the outward. That is, everyone has a face they show to others and a personal face they show to themselves.

Thankyou for demonstrating my point so effectively. Not only do you use the commonly accepted meaning of personality but also used a variant meaning for the word good. This was the point I was trying to make. The word personality comes from Latin persona which has the literal meaning mask.

[ST88]

"Good personality" means something totally different to me. It means that a person is an interesting person, not necessarily good or bad, just interesting to talk to or be around.

I don't know that I agree that personality is a mask, however. I think I know what you mean, but I would split the personality into the inward and the outward. That is, everyone has a face they show to others and a personal face they show to themselves.

Thankyou for demonstrating my point so effectively. Not only do you use the commonly accepted meaning of personality but also used a variant meaning for the word good. This was the point I was trying to make. The word personality comes from Latin persona which has the literal meaning mask.

Not that this is a big disagreement between us, but you took my quote out of context. Whereas you would use mask to explain how we would like to appear to others (good face, not so good interior), I use the concept to refer to an unconscious psychological drive based on the instinct of immediate survival (physically & emotionally). Do you see the difference?

[Curious]

"Good personality" means something totally different to me. It means that a person is an interesting person, not necessarily good or bad, just interesting to talk to or be around.

I don't know that I agree that personality is a mask, however. I think I know what you mean, but I would split the personality into the inward and the outward. That is, everyone has a face they show to others and a personal face they show to themselves.

Thankyou for demonstrating my point so effectively. Not only do you use the commonly accepted meaning of personality but also used a variant meaning for the word good. This was the point I was trying to make. The word personality comes from Latin persona which has the literal meaning mask.

Not that this is a big disagreement between us, but you took my quote out of context. Whereas you would use mask to explain how we would like to appear to others (good face, not so good interior), I use the concept to refer to an unconscious psychological drive based on the instinct of immediate survival (physically & emotionally). Do you see the difference?

I understand your point. It did not mean that the personality was formed consciously(although certain characteristics can be worked on) but that the perception of the self, even to ourselves, is not an absolute representation of the true self. The mask is as much a mask to ourselves as at is to others in this respect. This is why to "know thyself" is a lot harder than one might expect.