Self? Awareness?

One of the basic differences between living and non-living matter is that living matter has the ability to replicate itself. Some biologists think this ability to replicate is the beginning of something like life (although as I understand it, simple things like viruses may not qualify as living).

Another important difference between life and non-life is awareness.

Fichte's concept of self goes something like this: "The 'I' posits itself." For those of us who don't speak Fichtese, this means something like an awareness of "me" and "not me."

Very simple life forms can tell this difference: amoebas prey on paramecia, for example--but they don't eat their own organelles. On the other hand, the organelles (like mitochondria) in our own cells are thought to have evolved from once separate single-celled critters that the ancestors of our cells tried to eat. Instead of digestion, though, cooperation and symbiosis took place.

In short, this sort of awareness of "me" vs. "not me" is vital (literally) for life to survive. It's one of the early bases for what we call consciousness. Even organisms we don't tend to think of as "aware" have very rudimentary "senses" (for lack of a better word). A flower follows the path of the sun; tree roots will burst through metal and ceramic pipes to get to the water inside; some jellyfish can seek out their prey, despite their lack of eyes. This isn't woo-woo stuff like ESP, it's simply a sort of awareness that depends on sensory systems or reactions that humans don't have.

A rock, on the other hand, doesn't need this sort of awareness. It doesn't consume or reproduce, so it doesn't need to tell the difference between itself and everything else. The same is true of everything from atoms to galaxies. Non-living matter has no biological need for self-awareness.

But here's where it gets spooky: From the "observer effect" and "entanglement" of quantum physics, all the way up to the "emergent consciousness" idea (which I'll admit to being in love with), something like awareness has been postulated as happening in non-living systems.

Here we go back to Fichte's concept of self. Self, to Fichte, is defined by everything that isn't it. In a way, my I-ness would not exist without an environment, other creatures, and other people around me. I'm limited by "what I am not," which means that "what I am not" defines me. Without an outside, there would be no inside; without objective reality, there would be no subjective experience.

For pantheists like Spinoza and the early Stoics, this division is both essential and illusory. Although our minds are brief, personal experiences of life, our ability to reason is a very small, very limited part of the divine Mind or Logos.

In a way, consciousness causes the sense of separation--because it's the awareness of inner versus outer existence—that religion has always tried to overcome. But that separation is what creates us. Everything depends on everything else: we eat, we breathe, we live in the world, connected to everything. We feel separated from what defines us as ourselves.

Fichte’s student and partner-in-crime, Schelling, took this relationship and ran with it. Because Shelling had moral problems with Spinoza’s hard determinism (for good reason), he rearranged pantheism into something vital and alive, using Fichte’s idea of self.

For Schelling, the “I” experienced a subjective life within a larger objective existence. Using Fichte’s positing trick, he showed that subjective experience also limits objective existence. Subjective and objective were two sides of the same coin, in the same way that Spinoza’s Mind and Matter were.

Humans aren't unique in their self-awareness (the standard test being whether an animal can recognize itself in a mirror), but we are pretty special. And we have something that goes beyond just self-awareness--we have an awareness of our self-awareness. (Like our other qualities, this isn't a difference of kind, but of degree.) Because of this dual awareness, we can make judgments about ourselves, our friends, and the world we live in.

One of these possible judgments is what, exactly, constitutes "me."

The usual (surface) concept of self is simply my body and my mind. Dig a little deeper, though, and "me" turns out to include my home and family, my friends, even my job. These are all things that, like Fichte's positing I, help define a self. They belong, not necessarily in the inner circle (so to speak) of self-hood, but in a close second circle.

Add on a third, wider circle, and even the world I live in is a part of my self. I have no direct control over this part of my "self"--but I certainly wouldn't be "me" if I lived on Mars, for instance.

(Even people I hate have helped shape who I am. So I must include them in another--hopefully very thin--circle around my inner self.)

And finally, the universe as a whole: neither I, nor my home, nor my friends and family, nor anything that defines me in any way, would exist without the Earth, the sun, the galaxy, the universe. This is the final, outermost circle, with a circumference of infinity. This is the Self my little piece of self inhabits, the great "I Am" that shapes, determines, and limits my tiny posited "I."