|
Understand the meaning of the word,
i.e. notion of ‘self ’ The New
Oxford Dictionary (i.e. the NOD) defines the word: 1.
‘Self’, as noun or substantive: a
person’s essential being that distinguishes
them from others; a person’s particular nature or
personality especially considered as the
object of introspection or reflexive action.
(Note: the colours indicate a notional (hence meaning) shift. 2.
‘Self’ with adj.: a person’s particular nature or personality; the qualities
that make a person individual or unique. 3.
‘Self’ as pronoun: oneself; in particular. 4.
‘Self as adjective (attrib.): as the same material
or colouring as
the rest
of the item. (Note, if you compress out the particulars of this definition,
you arrive at the definition of Brahman = atman = prajpati, namely: ‘… same as the rest’ , i.e. not different, hence @ rest =
nirvana) 5.
‘Self’: of or directed towards oneself or itself. 6.
‘Self’: own (German: eigen) difference, i.e. the
difference (i.e. as random instruction) that identifies an individual. The
term ‘self’ (1 to 4) is assumed to be of Germanic origin, related to Dutch
zelf or German selbst (possibly meaning ‘of one’s own’, synonymous with
German, ‘eigen’). The early use of ‘self’ was emphatic, meaning ‘I myself’.
The term ‘self’ (5) is derived from the German ‘sich’ (i.e. action towards
the ‘I’). Closer
inspection of the NOD’s definition of the word ‘self’ reveals ‘self’ to be a
classic fuzz word, i.e. fuzzy because of
the many extremely different meanings, indeed meaning suggestions it
presents. In fact, the multiple meanings given to the word indicate that the
compilers of the NOD were extremely uncertain as to what the term ‘self’
actually meant when first used, or what it means now, or what it should or
could mean. So they did what the Tathagata (indeed his successors, and the
competitors busy inventing the Upanishads) did a couple of millennia ago.
They simply stacked together a variety of different possible meanings so as
to cover all ‘bets’ (or opinions), thereby letting the reader choose the one
she prefers. Offering multiple-choice interpretation
options for word amounts to cheating. The affect of offering a palette of possible
solutions (all uncertain) may result in three affects: 1.
The preferred meaning is chosen and stress reduction (if to zero,
then to nirvana = @rest) ensues, i.e. because the unresolved problem has been
resolved. 2.
A definition cannot be chosen. In this case the individual fails to
resolve the problem, and, by continuing to try (via endless computation),
eventually sinks into trance, i.e. he or she becomes enchanted or gives up
(i.e. stores the unresolved problem and which ‘waits’ as residual action,
hence as low level stress). During enchantment her stress level is reduced,
her resistance to instruction is lowered and a self-activating stress
reduction program (or any other program) can be installed. The deliberate use
of words whose meaning cannot be defined (thereby preventing computation
ending) serves as a ‘smoke and mirrors’ tactic designed to disable the
opponent (and permit brainwashing and/or colouring). 3.
A definition (possibly a politically correct one) is unwillingly
accepted. That eliminates stressing in the short run. Topics Index
|