STRUCTURAL BASIS OF THE SELF

While I shall concern myself in this paper with an outline of how I believe the neural system is involved in the establishment and maintenance of what, in our culture,* is variously called the self, I shall have to send you for many important details to other sources wherein these topics are more adequately developed. I trust the skeleton I can provide proves to be serviceable for the useful life of the creature we both assemble. I must begin by expressing at least one note of caution with regard to the use of the word self. The cognitive processes implied in the classical Greek usage of both q h and pLlj and the curious synthesis of the “self” and the “will” in the same Latin declension (in which m e served as the ancient dative and recent accusative of ego), represent only one of several possible approaches to the notion of the self. This occidental approach has opposed to it the oriental alternative of placing the pLlj, or negative will, outside the ~ y h , or self. If it is natural for the Western philosopher to focus upon the personal moiety in the interaction between individual and environment, it is just as natural for his Eastern counterpart to emphasize the cosmic contribution in the process of experience. Most important theological systems (not only the mystical ones) recognize the unity of existence-of the knower and known, creator and creation-and so also do all comprehensive philosophies of both the East and West. Nevertheless, the West tends to envision ideal man as a manipulator of his environment whereas the Orient finds it more appropriate to think of him as contemplative and yielding himself to incorporation within an harmonious cosmos (Rajagopal, 1961). Both viewpoints are important. We should not lose sight, as we proceed, that we shall be carrying our own particular prejudices with us. I can provide bones but you will have to clothe them.