Tattva-viveka
Are there 2 parts to the "self"
Jason - October 2, 2006 2:31 am
This question is something that I wanted to ask at the yoga center program the other night, but for whatever reason, I didn't. I know that this could escalate into a lengthy discussion (probably involving Freud at some point), and that's not really what I want to do, but I'll throw it out there for some insight from others. Remember, I'm more suited for the "Reader's Digest" version.
In my Sociology class, we were talking briefly about George Herbert Mead in regards to socialization, and in particular to his ideas about the development of the self. Many sociologists feel that as people acquire the ability for reflexive thinking (stepping outside yourself and observing from another's viewpoint), they learn to adjust the presentation of themselves to meet with others' expectations. Mead, however, felt that humans didn't do this mechanically. He proposed that there were two components of the self; the "me" and the "I", that were going back and forth.
The "me" portion has learned and internalized expectations about appropriateness in regards to behavior and appearances, etc. That part knows the norms and anticipates the outcome of it's actions.
The "I" is the spontaneous, creative and often times rebellious part that takes chances. What's interesting is that Mead doesn't specify how the "I" emerges, but says that it must exist otherwise humans would never change and we would just stagnate. He feels that the "me" develops through three stages of imitation, play, and games.
I've always heard devotees talk about giving up this "I, Me, Mine" mentality and what the nature of the true self is, but now I'm confused. From the Vaisnava perspective, are there components to the self like Mead suggests? Is the "me" part, like the covered over part of the real self after coming into contact with the modes of material nature?
Thanks in advance, 
Hmmmm....
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - October 2, 2006 4:19 am
Jivera 'svarupa' haya—krsnera 'nitya-dasa' that's your "true self" no matter how you slice it.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 3, 2006 4:30 am
Hi Jason,
It would be interesting if you were to do some more research on this and tell us what else you find out. From what I can gather, it sounds like the "me" is a kind of passive sense of identity: it is a sense of self formed by outside influences on it. The "I," on the other hand, interacts with the world and attempts to influence it. It would seem that these two kinds of identities relate to each other in a reciprocal way, in that how the world influences us will influence how we act, and how we act will influence how the world reacts to us, thereby influencing us further. Both of these types of identity are formed by the relationship between ourselves and the energy that we interact with: if we interact with material energy, our sense of identity will be formed accordingly; and if we interact with the spiritual energy (guru, scripture, Krishna-nama) our sense of identity will change.
What do you think?
Jason - October 3, 2006 5:06 am
Vinode Vani, I found this little snippet about Mead's theory of the Self on Wikipedia:
"Mead also rooted the self’s “perception and meaning” deeply and sociologically in "a common praxis of subjects" (Joas 1985: 166) found specifically in social encounters. Understood as a combination of the 'I' and the 'me', Mead’s self proves to be noticeably entwined within a sociological existence: For Mead, existence in community comes before individual consciousness. First one must participate in the different social positions within society and only subsequently can one use that experience to take the perspective of others and thus become self-conscious."
-------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to put this within a Vaisnava context and part of me thinks it makes sense; but part of me is unsure. By stating that existence within a community comes before individual consciousness; an individual sense of who we are, material speaking, I think that makes sense. We define who we are/how we fit in based on learned behaviors, observations, reciprocation from community and such. On the absolute platform, we have an spiritual identity (as Nanda Tanuja stated) that isn't based on societal appropriateness, rules, bodily designations, etc. However, also in that spiritual sense, aren't we part of a community that functions solely to serve Krsna? I remember reading/hearing about "groups" in the spiritual world as well. Here in our world, maybe his idea works. As you mentioned, we come into contact with material nature and get so bombarded with misidentification, we inevitably identify as part of a group/community before we develop any sense of individuality.
I dunno....
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 3, 2006 2:05 pm
From a Vaishnava perspective, our consciousness is part of an energy of Krishna called the tatastha shakti. This energy is defined by what it is in contact with; right now, we are in contact with material energy, or the maya shakti, so we are "like" matter (we are not matter, but we think we are, so we act accordingly). Our sole purpose in life is to try to emerge ourself in the svarupa shakti, or spiritual energy of the Lord, who mercifully tries to reach out to us with his svarupa shakti through Guru, sadhu sanga, Harinama, etc. I think Mead is correct in stating that the individual doesn't make sense soley as an individual, just as we say the tatastha shakti doesn't exist as a shakti isolated from everything else. We are who we associate with.
Jason - October 3, 2006 2:49 pm
From a Vaishnava perspective, our consciousness is part of an energy of Krishna called the tatastha shakti.
Is this the same as when Prabhupada mentions "marginal" energy or potency? I appreciate your helping me to understand this.
I think Mead is correct in stating that the individual doesn't make sense soley as an individual, just as we say the tatastha shakti doesn't exist as a shakti isolated from everything else. We are who we associate with.
To me this sounds really well stated. That makes sense, thanks. In class today we'll have to talk a little about what we thought/think about the ideas Mead presented. I will make a point to share this to a few people in my group. Thanks again.
Vinode Vani Dasa - October 3, 2006 7:10 pm
Is this the same as when Prabhupada mentions "marginal" energy or potency?
Yes, Prabhupada means the same thing.