Language Use and the Metaphysics of the Self

I. The problem.

1. The self is a doer, not an object of knowledge for itself.
2. We humans know objects (conocer) by a harmonic of comparisons between percepts and concepts. This we cannot do for the self because the self is never a percept.
3. Understanding knowledge (saber) is imagination reinforced by conocer knowledge.
   If the reinforcement is massive and immediate, the saber knowledge produced may be called physics. If the reinforcement is slight and distant, the saber knowledge may be called metaphysics.
4. Ideas about one’s self is saber, not conocer knowledge; is it metaphysics, not physics. It is usually myth, not truth.
5. If one looks for the self by introspection, one looks in vain. One sees memories, beliefs, desires, habits—but no phenomenal self.
6. If one looks for the self in asking others, one is given myths because to others we present no phenomenal self. We present to others only a body which acts.
7. So we must look to God for a true account of our self. Should He inform us, believing such would be faith, not knowledge. (But is it not true that most of our saber knowledge is faith, not knowledge?)

II. An account of the self as portrayed in the LDS scriptures.

1. The self is a will (chooser) embodied in flesh, blood and bone.
2. The will makes choices when confronted with alternatives.
3. The basic alternatives for human choice are good and evil. In every situation in life there may be an impulse to do a good thing and an opposing influence to do one or more evil things.
               Example: I am being introduced to someone; I can be either warm and friendly or cold and remote.
4. The self reveals itself to itself and to others by its choices between the good and evil alternatives available to it. But the revelation may not be believed because a particular mythology is preferred by the self or by another person (a choosing).
5. The difference between selves is found in the circumstances of life each enjoys and the choices each makes within the parameters of those life circumstances.
6. Each self grades itself by how long it takes them in what circumstances it may be in to stop choosing evil and to thereafter choose only good. For some this does not take place until after mortal death.
7. The day of judgment is the occasion when all of the circumstances/choices of the individual are reviewed in concentrated form.
8. If the self has chosen good, it will continue to choose good. If the self has chosen evil, then it must suffer further adverse circumstances until it turns to choosing only good.
9. Each self progressively creates itself by the choices it makes.

III. The effects of this account of the self on the theory of language use.

1. Meaning is always immediate. The self has no reference point to know what it meant at a past time or what it will mean at a future time. It can only “mean” something in the present.
               This means that all translation is approximate. One cannot be sure that one is translating one’s own previous meaning correctly and identically in two situations separated by a space of time.
2. There can be no private language because I cannot certify from moment to moment that I am using the same words with the same meanings. (Argument of Wittgenstein).
3. I can “mean” only in a particular circumstance. No two circumstances are ever identical (though we may sometimes find it practical to ignore the differences). Thus, no two meanings are ever the same.

Conclusion: I cannot fully know myself. I can act; I can mean; but what the “I” is I cannot fathom. But I do get clues as to what I am as I compare the acts I perform with the standards given by revelation. By my fruits I know myself as well as others. My witness as to my deeds may be good; but my witness of my self may not be reliable.