
The Essence of Peopling - ivank
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/04/08/the-essence-of-peopling/
======
visakanv
One of the most interesting things I've ever read was about this guy who was
homeless and living in the forest for a really long time. [1] He talked about
how for certain periods of time, he completely forgot that he existed. Without
having anybody to perform his identity to, he had no consistent self or
identity.

> "I did examine myself," he said. "Solitude did increase my perception. But
> here's the tricky thing—when I applied my increased perception to myself, I
> lost my identity. With no audience, no one to perform for, I was just there.
> There was no need to define myself; I became irrelevant. The moon was the
> minute hand, the seasons the hour hand. I didn't even have a name. I never
> felt lonely. To put it romantically: I was completely free."

For me personally, this makes me think that the phenomenology of selfhood is
very much dependent on perception and others. To be is to be perceived. In the
absence of perception, the "I" dissolves.

Perhaps "I think, therefore I am" sorta still makes sense as long as you're
aware of the fact that you're thinking. But as the Hermit describes– when
you're alone for a long enough period, and you're not thinking about other
people, or what other people will think of you when you return, or what
letters you want to write for other people, "I" stops showing up. And
therefore "I" does not exist. The entity that is the person is still hanging
out in the forest, but he/it has no need for a name or any consistent
identity.

_____

[1] [http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201409/the-
last-t...](http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201409/the-last-true-
hermit)

~~~
dantheman
"I think therefore I am" is actually about what it is possible to know.
Descartes basically argues that the only thing you can be sure of is that you
are a thinking thing.

------
alexashka
Can somebody offer some cliff notes on what they got out of this?

I skimmed because frankly I'm too jaded to fully read something that doesn't
start out with an introduction, telling me what's up ahead and why I should
care and instead goes on and on for many pages.

The parts that I skimmed felt like the thoughts I tend to have regarding big
ideas that haven't come together quite yet. There's definitely something, but
it's elusive because something is missing, something big enough that it tends
to cut many pages into a paragraph. That's what this feels like to me.

"In conclusion, drink tea, together with your friends; pay attention to the
tea, and to your friends, and pay attention to your friends paying attention
to the tea. Therein lies the meaning of life."

This is a terribly obnoxious thing to say to somebody after they've supposedly
spent 20 minutes reading your article. The meaning of life?

I once read a book when I was 20 that blew my mind so hard that I spent the
next year in varying degrees of telling others THEY need to do and think like
I do because clearly, this feels so right and it felt so wrong prior. It was
like falling in love with a new outlook on life, the infatuation takes a while
to fade away.

If you're not careful, you can develop a guru complex where you start thinking
you possess knowledge others need to urgently know about. That's where
sentences like 'therein lies the meaning of life' come from I find.

That feeling will pass and you'll look back on having written words that imply
you have life figured out and shake your head in disbelief :)

~~~
melloclello
Welcome to Ribbonfarm.

------
katelynsills
I'm always confused by psychological references to Descartes "I think,
therefore I am" statement. Isn't this instead a statement about knowledge?
That is, starting from no assumptions, what can be known about the world? It's
my understanding that Descartes' answer was that the fact that the questioner
is currently thinking means that they must exist, and this can be used as a
foundation for more knowledge about the world.

~~~
trivial
I was always taught that Descartes "I think therefor I am" quote is often
misunderstood or at least misrepresented. What I was taught might be a better
way to understand it is very close to what you stated. If a person can doubt
the existence of everything then certainly they could doubt even the existence
of themselves. Once one starts down a path of doubting then certainly
everything is subject to scrutiny. What one cannot doubt is the fact they are
doubting. So perhaps the quote should be better paraphrased as "I doubt
therefor I am". Ive always found that helpful and while it seems you
understand that point very well I just thought Id mention it because prior to
such an explanation the process by which one affirms there existence because
they think never made much sense to me.

~~~
mbrock
Note also that Descartes expresses a fear, which he doesn't explore very much,
that if he were to momentarily stop thinking, he might "cease to exist." He
has a formulation along the lines of: "I exist, that's certain—but _how
often?_ " The answer: as long as he is thinking, he exists. So the Cartesian
affirmation of individual existence has an interesting porosity.

~~~
potatoyogurt
I think the problem goes even further. The cogito assumes an "I" that it never
really establishes. "I think, therefore some thoughts exist" seems to hard to
challenge, but who is to say that these thoughts are continuous or coherent,
that they really define a single entity "I?"

~~~
diggum
ding! For a statement that is supposed to be free of assumptions, assuming
there's a thinker instead of just thoughts, is a pretty big leap.

~~~
sl8r
"When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think', I
find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps
impossible, to prove; for example that it is _I_ who thinks, that there must
necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity or
operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is
an 'ego', and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated
by thinking - that I _know_ what thinking is. For if I had not already decided
within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that
which is just happening is perhaps not 'willing' or 'feeling'? ... Whoever
ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort
of _intuitive_ perception, like the person who says, 'I think, and know that
this, at least, is true, actual and certain' \- will encounter nowadays a
smile and two question marks from a philosopher nowadays. 'Sir', the
philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, 'it is improbable that you
are not mistaken, but why insist on the truth?'"

------
sauronlord
This. Is. Fucking. Amazing.

For years I looked for a succinct and cohesive explanation of why Descartes is
fundamentally misguided.

Just ordered my copy of 'Others in mind" ([http://www.amazon.com/Others-Mind-
Social-Origins-Self-Consci...](http://www.amazon.com/Others-Mind-Social-
Origins-Self-Consciousness/dp/0521729653)) referenced in article.

~~~
apineda
Thank you for your comment. I skipped after the first paragraph. I then came
back to comments and was convinced to read further and I am happy I did.

------
Varcht
I was quite sure this would culminate in a plea for better UX and user
testing.

~~~
visakanv
To be fair, there's always room for better UX.

~~~
Varcht
Not disagreeing.

