https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=JruqrLvd2dM
What would you estimate are the boundaries between self-care and selfishness? Well, that’s a good follow-up question for what we’ve been just discussing. Well, the first thing we have to sort out there is, well, what do you mean by self? And people make memes about me because I’m always asking for word definitions. But, and it annoys people because they think, well, it’s just, you know what that means. It’s like, is God real? What do you mean by real? Well, you can’t ask that. It’s like, well, then you can’t ask your question either. What do you mean real? Well, everyone understands that. It’s like, really, we do, do we? We understand what’s real. We’ve got that nailed down. What you’re really asking is something like, here’s what I am insisting that you regard as real, which is usually something like an objective materialism. Does God fit into that category? It’s like, well, that’s a completely different question than the one you asked. No, perhaps is the answer to that question, but you didn’t formulate the question reasonably because when you formulate a question like, is God real? God’s a mystery in that question, and so is real. And you don’t get away with the axiomatic presupposition that you’ve got real nailed down, and all we have to do now is mop up God. It’s not reasonable. It’s not acceptable in the least. It’s just a trick, and it’s not a very sophisticated trick. And so in this situation, selfishness versus self-care, well, I think really the issue there is the definition of self. So whatever the self is, is very complicated because it’s really what you are at your core. That’s the question. That’s unbelievably complicated. It’s like, what the hell do you know about who you are at your core? I mean, human beings are, we have no idea what we are in the final analysis. And so Carl Jung wrote books on the self. He believed Christ was a symbol of the self. It’s a very complicated idea. It takes a lot of unpacking. You could think about the self as what it is that has demands right now. And when people attempt to define themselves subjectively, which has become something to be insisted upon in our current culture, they usually mean something like, the ultimate self is the whim that possesses me now. And that’s a dubious proposition. What the whim that possesses you now is more accurately conceptualized as a fragmentary self. You know, if you have a two-year-old and the two-year-old wants something and has a little tantrum in the grocery store because of it, the impulsive demand that possesses that child in that context is a fragmentary part of the child, but it in no means is reflective of the totality of that person. Then you might ask yourself, well, what’s the totality? And well, as I said, that’s a very complicated problem. But the totality of a person is certainly their iterations across time. It’s at least that, right? Because there’s a past you and there’s a present you and there’s a future you. And whatever you is in the final analysis is the aggregation of all of that across time. And maybe the aggregation of all of your manifestations in every social context as well. And then I could say, well, if you’re taking care of yourself wisely, then you’re taking all of that into account simultaneously. And then if that selfishness, then that could be viewed as a positive good. But if you’re subordinating that greater totality to the impulses of a momentary whim, which you’ve defined as the self, then that’s a very bad idea. All that’s going to do is cause trouble and make you unpopular. And so I don’t believe there’s any difference between service to the highest self and service to other people. I think those are the same thing. And we can think about that technically, too. So there’s a lot of other people and there’s only one of you. And you’re going to interact with people in a multitude of ways across your life. And you could imagine this is that if you play fair in every interaction, or if everyone you interact with walks away from your interactions having gained, then everyone is going to line up to to play with you. And so how is that going to be anything but good for you? How could anything possibly be better than that? Because you’re outnumbered very badly. And so if all the people around you are inclined, because of the way you’ve conducted yourself, to facilitate your progress forward, why wouldn’t that be the best thing for you that could possibly occur? And one of the things I’ve suggested to my audiences, and people seem to resonate with this quite deeply, is imagine yourself ill and bereft of capacity, suffering. You think, well, what might sustain you during such a time? This is the question that’s posed in a marriage, for example, for better or for worse, let’s say. And one answer is, the fruits of the sacrifices that you offered in relationship to other people previously. And so what does that mean? Well, if you had been responsible and caring, mature, and self-sacrificing in the proper manner, and I don’t mean martyrdom, like a nihilistic martyrdom or a resentful martyrdom, then you’ve stored up, to put it sort of coldly, social capital. And then people will be pleased to return the favour in times of desperation. And that way, if that was the case for all of us all of the time, then we’d be in a mutually sustaining web of interactions. And that’s not exactly organising your psyche, right, so that you can sail through suffering. It’s more external. It’s that you’re storing up your sanity in the reciprocal goodwill that you’ve built up with other people. And to do that optimally, you do that in a spirit of something like playful love, if you do it optimally. And of course, that’s going to redound to your great benefit. But even better than that, it’s going to redound to your great benefit in a way that’s also simultaneously mutually beneficial to as many others as you’re skillful enough to manage. This developmental psychologist named Jean Piaget. Piaget is a very interesting thinker. And he was motivated by… his life’s goal was to reconcile science and religion. And modern analysts of Piaget generally regard him as a developmental psychologist. But he described himself as a genetic epistemologist. And by genetic, he meant one who analyses the genesis of things or their beginning. And by epistemologist, he meant someone who analyses structures of knowledge. And so what Piaget was trying to do was to understand how our structures of knowledge developed across time. He thought if you wanted to pursue philosophy and even more deeply, let’s say theology, then it would make sense to look at how knowledge structures developed from childhood forward. Because they’re simpler in childhood and you might be able to understand them better than having to dive right into adult cognition. And he got a long ways on his enterprise. I think farther than people realize. He’s a very sophisticated thinker. He had this theory of equilibration, which is a lovely theory. So an equilibrated system will maintain itself without outside compulsion. And you might think, well, that’s what you want in a political system, right? Because you want to live in a state that you want to live in. And you all, in fact, live in a state. I don’t mean California. I mean the United States. And California less so lately, by the way. You want to live in a state where you don’t have to be compelled. You want to be part of an organization that you’ve bought into voluntarily. And it’s so interesting because that’s actually one of the criteria by which you could judge the value of a state. Does the state have to impose its dictates by force? Or does the state offer you a vision that you voluntarily accept and celebrate? And I would say your country has been very, very good at that. I mean the American dream is not a dream that merely possesses Americans. It’s a dream that in some sense has been offered to the whole world. And I would say you might ask, well, what’s the evidence for that? And I would say, how about the fact that people want to move here? That constitutes the evidence. And even though this country is far from perfect, that’s not exactly the issue. The issue is, is it less imperfect than the other offerings? And the answer to that is, well, do people want to move here? And if the answer to that is yes, then that’s the evidence. And clearly they want to move here. And there are reasons for that. And so, and the reason for that in some sense is because you’re playing an equilibrated game. It’s a game that will sustain itself without compulsion. And that’s actually the definition of a game. So for Piaget, a game was a microcosm of the promised land. That’s a good way of thinking about it, if you want to think about it theologically. So a game is an arrangement, a vision, shared by two or more players voluntarily. And so when two children decide to play a game together, maybe they decide to play house, the one child who’s offering the game might say, do you want to play house? And the other child, say it’s a boy and a girl, say, yeah, I’d like to play house with you. And so then no force is required because both are voluntary participants. And then the children develop a shared vision, which is the confines of the game to play house. Then they run the simulation. And if they run the simulation properly, then they both find it engaging. And the engagement is a marker for the quality of the game. And the game expands their capacity to perceive and act with skill in relationship to an important life goal, right? Establishing a permanent relationship, because that’s what you’re practicing when you’re playing house. And if that’s done optimally, then it doesn’t require compulsion. And if the two children are very good at doing that together, then they want to repeat it and continue to develop their skill. And that’s what a friendship is. And that’s not based on power, right? That’s not based on a power relationship. That’s so cool to know that because, you know, the cynics say, well, it’s all about power. And they usually say that because they want it to be all about power. But really, and but that isn’t the basis for stable human relations. Stable human relations are based on the construction of equilibrated states. And if your marriage is equilibrated, you both want to be in it. Now, I mean, there’ll be times when you don’t and, you know, you need to abide by the fact that you’ve accepted some constraints. So that, well, you’re not equilibrated. You’re not getting along. You don’t just leave, right? You still fight it through and try to reestablish an equilibrated state. But the idea of equilibrated state is extraordinarily interesting. And it’s it’s a vision of paradise. And the proper vision of paradise is something like eternal play. That’s a good way of thinking about it. And play is a better basis for the establishment of social relations than power by any measure, by any multitude of measures. And so. Properly selfish is. An equilibrated state across multiple instantiations of games across a very long period of time in very many social contexts. And so if you’re serving that. That’s enlightened selfishness, you could say. But it’s identical with treating other people in the best possible manner. It’s the same thing. And we know that, you know, we have an ethos. Our culture is predicated on ethos, which is treat your neighbor as you would like to be treated yourself. Or maybe more love thy neighbor as as thyself. And that means. To act towards your neighbor as if he or she is capable of producing a sequence of Jacob’s Ladder like goals across time. And that you are of the same nature. And that will. Increase the probability that that direction will be the one that makes sense. And that’s that’s definitely the case. I mean, I had people in my clinical practice who had become embittered and resentful. They’re often naive people and people generally start out naive who’d been betrayed. No, and they they regarded their loss of naivety as an increment in wisdom. And you see this with cynical people. Right. And they think, well, I was naive and I got burned and that’s not going to happen again. And it’s like fair enough. That actually is an increment in wisdom. But you’re in the desert at that point. Right. I mean, the naivety wasn’t a virtue and the collapse is a catastrophe. But the place you end up with is not positive. But you’re not going to say, well, I’m not going to drop my cynicism and go back to being naive because that would actually be a reversal of of the acquisition of knowledge. Plus, you know what they say once burned twice shy. So then, well, what’s the alternative to the cynicism that’s induced by malevolence? And the answer to that is something like it’s something like courageous trust. So imagine that you want to bring the best out of people, even though now you know that there’s plenty of the worst there, too. And the answer is, well, how do you the question is, how do you do that? And the answer doesn’t seem to be by facing everyone with a pervading spirit of distrust and bitterness. That just doesn’t seem to work. And you might think, well, that’s justified because I’ve been burned multiple times. Why wouldn’t I do that? And the answer has to be something like because you have the courage not to. Right. If you’re not going to fall back into a foolish naivety and not allow yourself to be twisted into nihilism by bitterness, then you have to be courageous. Then your option is something like, well, I know perfectly well that you’re full of snakes, but I’m going to extend my hand anyway. Based on the faith that if you have the courage to do that, that the being that you will call out of the other person is thereby rendered most likely to be of the upward stumbling type. And I think that’s I think that’s the case. You know, you see people who are very sophisticated in their perceptions and social ability and they can interact even with people who are quite corrupt and still increase the probability quite dramatically that the interaction will be positive. And so and that’s part of that impulse towards the development of an equilibrated state. And so to reach out your hand like that to your fallen brother, let’s say, without being naive, that’s part and parcel of acting out that highest order conception of the self. That’s the logos. That’s that’s how that works. So that’s an answer to that question.