Left Hand Path Only: Can the Concept of Higher Self Hold up to Logical Scrutiny?

[crossfire]

Only one way to find out.

Post your definitions of Higher Self and let's see how well they hold up to critique.

 

[Serpent Child]

My main personal definition of the "Higher Self" is me, but a being who has completed all of my goals, which is going beyond time, conquering myself, my chakras, mastering the elements, raising the kundalini serpent successfully and fully, completing the Magnum Opus (spiritual and physical immortality). Mastering and perfecting myself completely as well. I believe I can communicate with my future and past selves simply through my thoughts. This has been achieved for me personally but I won't talk about those experiences...

 

[crossfire]

My main personal definition of the "Higher Self" is me, but a being who has completed all of my goals, which is going beyond time, conquering myself, my chakras, mastering the elements, raising the kundalini serpent successfully and fully, completing the Magnum Opus (spiritual and physical immortality). Mastering and perfecting myself completely as well. I believe I can communicate with my future and past selves simply through my thoughts. This has been achieved for me personally but I won't talk about those experiences...

So, do you see yourself as you are now as something to be conquered or is in the processes of being conquered by by your Higher Self?

 

[VioletVortex]

The "Higher Self" is one's deeper will; their primary aspirations and overarching desires in life. The Lower Self is one's more impulsive side; their more temporary and situation based desires. I think that one's Lower Self will naturally have more faults in logic than the Higher Self, but one can refine themselves and thus control their will into becoming something rooted more in logic than impulse.

 

[Kapalika]

I would argue that most understandings of the higher self are little more than a projection of the ego and desires. That the trap many fall into, is self-image actualization.

That is why using a deity is so important. They take the role but so can't identify as them until you've actually achieved that state of true union.

 

[Mindmaster]

Only one way to find out.

Post your definitions of Higher Self and let's see how well they hold up to critique.

I don't really believe there is a higher self, just your-self. To me, the concept implies that there is some 'inferior' version of yourself, probably this one, and that it is an anomaly - something to be fixed. Swapped to some Crowley idea like "true will" is even worse, creating an artificial set of rails to remove free action. In many ways, I still find these ideas in direct opposition to basic LHP principles. The whole True Will thing especially, it sort of creates a "sin mechanic" where the unguided are basically in danger of wronging their holy ghost, who is supposed to be them but higher, etc.. and so on...

 

[Onyx]

I might define the "higher self" as the total sum of all that you were, are, and may become in the future. But ultimately I think it's an ill-defined term that requires context and clarification. Interesting thread.

 

[crossfire]

I might define the "higher self" as the total sum of all that you were, are, and may become in the future. But ultimately I think it's an ill-defined term that requires context and clarification. Interesting thread.

The concept of "Self" is difficult enough to conceptualize and prone to internal and logical error. Therefore, the idea of "Higher Self" would be even more difficult to conceptualize without internal logical errors. (Unless, of course, you define "Higher Self" as "that which defies logic and reasoning, yet persists.")

 

[crossfire]

I don't really believe there is a higher self, just your-self. To me, the concept implies that there is some 'inferior' version of yourself, probably this one, and that it is an anomaly - something to be fixed. Swapped to some Crowley idea like "true will" is even worse, creating an artificial set of rails to remove free action. In many ways, I still find these ideas in direct opposition to basic LHP principles. The whole True Will thing especially, it sort of creates a "sin mechanic" where the unguided are basically in danger of wronging their holy ghost, who is supposed to be them but higher, etc.. and so on...

I would tend to agree. I'm apophatic in my approach. As Chuang Tzu would put it, "The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity."
It's like the Uncertainty Principle, where you can't precisely know both position AND momentum, or you can't precisely know both energy AND time, as the measurement of one requires the use of the other, and changes the value of the other. Likewise, if you use one component of Self to try to measure another, you will get the same Uncertainty. What you wind up with is something nebulous and difficult to describe. You can describe what it is not, but you can't describe what it is without any Uncertainty. Any concept applied to it would have to be conditional and subject to change--useful in only a limited sense.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I tend to think of one's Higher Self as a personification of the spiritual consciousness that they possess. It is called the Higher Self because it constantly evolves to become better than yesterday or a month ago or something to that effect. So it is constantly around and becoming higher. It is also the part that tends to be the most secretive about a person, almost like a sacred space or personal temple.

 

[crossfire]

Lots of different definitions here, so far! Will the Real™ Higher Self© please stand up?

 

[Kapalika]

The concept of "Self" is difficult enough to conceptualize and prone to internal and logical error. Therefore, the idea of "Higher Self" would be even more difficult to conceptualize without internal logical errors. (Unless, of course, you define "Higher Self" as "that which defies logic and reasoning, yet persists.")

Honest question; Do you think this understanding relates to the anatman concept of Buddhism?

 

[crossfire]

Honest question; Do you think this understanding relates to the anatman concept of Buddhism?

Yep. Neti neti. Not this, not that. Apophatic approach.

 

[EverChanging]

I don't really believe there is a higher self, just your-self. To me, the concept implies that there is some 'inferior' version of yourself, probably this one, and that it is an anomaly - something to be fixed. Swapped to some Crowley idea like "true will" is even worse, creating an artificial set of rails to remove free action. In many ways, I still find these ideas in direct opposition to basic LHP principles. The whole True Will thing especially, it sort of creates a "sin mechanic" where the unguided are basically in danger of wronging their holy ghost, who is supposed to be them but higher, etc.. and so on...

Perhaps I do not understand it, but the idea of true will seems dualistic to me.

I would tend to agree. I'm apophatic in my approach. As Chuang Tzu would put it, "The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by. So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity."
It's like the Uncertainty Principle, where you can't precisely know both position AND momentum, or you can't precisely know both energy AND time, as the measurement of one requires the use of the other, and changes the value of the other. Likewise, if you use one component of Self to try to measure another, you will get the same Uncertainty. What you wind up with is something nebulous and difficult to describe. You can describe what it is not, but you can't describe what it is without any Uncertainty. Any concept applied to it would have to be conditional and subject to change--useful in only a limited sense.

Are you also skeptical of a "true will" for similar reasons?

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps I do not understand it, but the idea of true will seems dualistic to me.


Are you also skeptical of a "true will" for similar reasons?

yes

 

[EtuMalku]

Sorry I'm late to the party, my PC has been down . . .

"Anamnesis is the true soul-memory, intermittent access to the divine wisdom within every human being as an immortal spectator. All self-conscious monads have known over immemorial time a vast host of subjects and objects, modes and forms, an ever-changing universe . . . As every incarnated being manifests a poor, pale caricature of himself - a small, self-limiting, and inverted reflection of one's 'noetic' and creative potential"
___________________________________________________
from Mind Star by Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D. Priest of Set

Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little? The fact is that the brains of other creatures have remained practically the same size while man’s has “evolved”. This is inconsistent, and it will be recalled that the hallmark of the objective universe - and deistic proof of God - is its consistency. By the law of averages - which applies to natural selection as much as to anything else - there should have been at least some species other than man evolving in intelligence at least partway to the human level. There is none.

What about Human intelligence as a violation of objective universal law? That evidence for the existence of an intelligent entity distinct from the objective universe has instilled in humanity the potential to enjoy the same external perspective, as well as the intelligence to do so with deliberate, creative purpose?

The soul or self does not behave as though it were merely a “sum total” of the brain’s sensory and manipulative capacities, combining and recombining inputted information as though it were an “organic” electronic computer. It has a sense of identity, a sense of uniqueness, a sense of distance and differentiation from everything else that exists.

My belief is that there is the objective universe which contains everything physical that we know, it is a mechanism, a process which enables Creation and Destruction to take place.

Our physical beings are products of this, as is everything else. But we as human beings are greater than everything else in many ways. To me this indicates there is something greater than our physical self. For me, there is a higher Self, an Isolate Intelligence that is an individual consciousness. It exists separate from the objective universe and the brain acts as a conduit for this intelligence to interact on the physical / objective plane of existence.

Human intelligence is a violation of objective universal law.
Take away our abnormal intelligence and mankind would die out or be killed off within a few generations.

Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little?

In the case of proto-man, natural selection would occur in favor of almost anything else besides the brain. He would become stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster. According to natural selection, you and I should be gorillas.

But we are not gorillas. Indeed, as our intelligence has made life progressively easier for us, we have become weaker and more vulnerable physically. We are healthier and more long-lived only because our intelligence has enabled us to produce medicines to stave off diseases, and dietary standards to maximize our health and growth potential. We have controlled environments to fend off the elements, and have developed weapons to fend off other creatures

I propose that we have superior intellect and that this is not a property of the objective universe / physical plane, that it is the resultant of us being the only creature with a higher Self that acts through our 'lower' self.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.

So what has taken place?
We are left with the explanation: Deliberate Cause
And this implies an isolate intelligence working through our physical being (brain / body)


"Selves are individuated by experiences, so that whatever entities are jointly responsible for unifying sensations into a single experience thereby constitute a single self."
_____________________________________________
Immanuel Kant


Mark Luskin on Isolate Intelligence
The primary model of the Cosmos for Vedanta is one made up of three great divisions. There is a Gross Realm, which would be material reality. There is the Subtle Realm which is made up spiritual energies tied to emotions. And there is a Causal Realm which is made up of what are termed "Causal Principles," an idea roughly analogous to the Platonic Forms of the Egyptian neteru. The manifest universe is seen s being the result of Causal Principles being manifested through the Subtle Realm and taking shape in the Gross Realm.

As an individual you have "Bodies" in each of these Realms. When you re awake you are mostly aware of the Gross Body. When you are dreaming it is the Subtle Body that you re interacting with. In deep, dreamless sleep it is the Causal Realm that you are experiencing through your Causal Body.

When an individual is interacting with a Divine Principle on a Gross level it is done through objects fashioned to reflect this Principle or through items thought to partake of its essence. When an individual is interacting with a Divine Principle on a Subtle Level this experience is had int eh language of mythology and personality. When an individual is interacting with a Divine Principle on a Casual Level they are dealing with a featureless pure abstraction.

Now let us look at the Principle of Isolate Intelligence in this fashion. On a Causal level the Principle of Isolate Intelligence is without Form, but sets the ways in which the Principle manifests in the Subtle and Gross realms. How a given individual will create a Subtle construct to interact with this Principle is highly shaped by their individual psyche which contains a fundamental "Mytheme" system to draw upon to create meaning. If the personal representation is seen as useful and meaningful it can be passed on to others as a means for them to gain access to the deeper Causal Principle. Highly stable Subtle constructs become the provenience of mythologies and can be shared across generations.


Jung on the Self

The Self in Jungian psychology is one of the Jungian archetypes, signifying the unification of consciousness and unconsciousness in a person, and representing the psyche as a whole. The Self, according to Jung, is realized as the product of individuation, which in his view is the process of integrating one's personality.

The ego is the center of consciousness, whereas the Self is the center of the total personality, which includes consciousness, the unconscious, and the ego. The Self is both the whole and the center. While the ego is a self-contained little center of the circle contained within the whole, the Self can be understood as the greater circle.

Jung considered that from birth every individual has an original sense of
wholeness - of the Self - but that with development a separate ego-consciousness crystallizes out of the original feeling of unity. This process of ego-differentiation provides the task of the first half of one's life-course, though Jungians also saw psychic health as depending on a periodic return to the sense of Self, something facilitated by the use of myths, initiation ceremonies, and rites of passage.

Once ego-differentiation had been successfully achieved and the individual is securely anchored in the external world, Jung considered that a new task then arose for the second half of life - a return to, and conscious rediscovery of, the Self: individuation.

 

[crossfire]

I'll address a few points here

<...>
My belief is that there is the objective universe which contains everything physical that we know, it is a mechanism, a process which enables Creation and Destruction to take place.

Indeed, the inorganic physical realm does seem rather mechanistic, with physical forces and laws. Organic life seems to be a means by which to use these physical forces and turn them around for a contrary effect as compared to inorganic processes alone.

Our physical beings are products of this, as is everything else. But we as human beings are greater than everything else in many ways. To me this indicates there is something greater than our physical self. For me, there is a higher Self, an Isolate Intelligence that is an individual consciousness. It exists separate from the objective universe and the brain acts as a conduit for this intelligence to interact on the physical / objective plane of existence.

A possible theoretical counter-argument to this for consideration: life forms have demonstrated species-specific types of consciousness that are collective to that species, and sometimes to a localized colony of a given species, perhaps even down to bacteria colonies (via epigenetics driven by interaction with the environment.) A very large constituent of our bodies consists of specific bacterial colonies. Our "individuality" can possibly be a system of localized species-collective consciousness's working together as a system. (Only presented for argument's sake.)

Human intelligence is a violation of objective universal law.

Life is a means of using and manipulating objective universal laws to achieve a contrary effect. (A 'violation" of effect without actually violating the causes/objective laws)

Take away our abnormal intelligence and mankind would die out or be killed off within a few generations.

Take away our bodies' bacterial colonies and we'll die a lot quicker!

Proto-man was just one of many animal species fighting for survival over the millennia. If his brain could evolve through processes of natural selection, then why did the brains of other creatures not similarly evolve - at least a little?

If you consider the species collective consciousness angle, brains are not required. If you want to question this collective consciousness, however, a brain might be a mechanism to manipulate these collective consciousnesses and turn them around to create a contrary effect in much the same way that life harnesses to inorganic forces/processes and turns them around to produce a contrary effect.

In the case of proto-man, natural selection would occur in favor of almost anything else besides the brain. He would become stronger, hairier, tougher, meaner, and faster. According to natural selection, you and I should be gorillas.

But we are not gorillas. Indeed, as our intelligence has made life progressively easier for us, we have become weaker and more vulnerable physically. We are healthier and more long-lived only because our intelligence has enabled us to produce medicines to stave off diseases, and dietary standards to maximize our health and growth potential. We have controlled environments to fend off the elements, and have developed weapons to fend off other creatures

I propose that we have superior intellect and that this is not a property of the objective universe / physical plane, that it is the resultant of us being the only creature with a higher Self that acts through our 'lower' self.

Chicken and egg-question when you consider other possibilities.

By the laws of nature that we have observed over time, by all accounts another species should have developed at least a brain remotely close to ours. And none have, for the most part every single surviving creature has remained exactly the same except us.

Specializing in harnessing collective consciousnesses and turning them around in much the same way that life harnesses physical processes is a rather novel approach. We have even taken this a step further by building collectives from these individualized systems and questioning them further to the point that this questioning has been systemized. The rise of subjective individualism from life may be analogous to the rise of life from non-life.


Question is: is this questioning/contrariness a "habit" or an "outside will?" Please keep in mind the connection between habit and will--"habit" being default, and "will" going against the default. Is going against the default a habit?

 

[EtuMalku]

Do you still not recognize a higher Self and if you do, is it still unuseful for you?

I'll address a few points here

Indeed, the inorganic physical realm does seem rather mechanistic, with physical forces and laws. Organic life seems to be a means by which to use these physical forces and turn them around for a contrary effect as compared to inorganic processes alone.


A possible theoretical counter-argument to this for consideration: life forms have demonstrated species-specific types of consciousness that are collective to that species, and sometimes to a localized colony of a given species, perhaps even down to bacteria colonies (via epigenetics driven by interaction with the environment.) A very large constituent of our bodies consists of specific bacterial colonies. Our "individuality" can possibly be a system of localized species-collective consciousness's working together as a system. (Only presented for argument's sake.)


Life is a means of using and manipulating objective universal laws to achieve a contrary effect. (A 'violation" of effect without actually violating the causes/objective laws)

Take away our bodies' bacterial colonies and we'll die a lot quicker!


If you consider the species collective consciousness angle, brains are not required. If you want to question this collective consciousness, however, a brain might be a mechanism to manipulate these collective consciousnesses and turn them around to create a contrary effect in much the same way that life harnesses to inorganic forces/processes and turns them around to produce a contrary effect.



Chicken and egg-question when you consider other possibilities.


Specializing in harnessing collective consciousnesses and turning them around in much the same way that life harnesses physical processes is a rather novel approach. We have even taken this a step further by building collectives from these individualized systems and questioning them further to the point that this questioning has been systemized. The rise of subjective individualism from life may be analogous to the rise of life from non-life.


Question is: is this questioning/contrariness a "habit" or an "outside will?" Please keep in mind the connection between habit and will--"habit" being default, and "will" going against the default. Is going against the default a habit?

 

[crossfire]

Do you still not recognize a higher Self and if you do, is it still unuseful for you?

The term "Higher Self" is not really very descriptive of something difficult to describe and impossible to trace down the origins of. Labelling it as such would involve speculation, which would be a distortion of the untraceable and hard to describe qualities. Just because whatever it is defies description and traceability in no way voids out the possibility of it being real.

 

[EtuMalku]

The term "Higher Self" is not really very descriptive of something difficult to describe and impossible to trace down the origins of. Labelling it as such would involve speculation, which would be a distortion of the untraceable and hard to describe qualities. Just because whatever it is defies description and traceability in no way voids out the possibility of it being real.

I prefer Monad, but that almost always creates even more confusion.