Talk:Outline of self

The scientific and biological basis of self
It appears odd to me that self as a concept within neurobiology, genetics or 'hard-science' is not at least something that has different definitions within different branches of science (psychology is respectable in as much as it applies mathemathematical methods in regards to attempting to make sense of large data sets as occurs within statistics).

In particular, one could argue that there are many aspects of self that are deeply intertwined with genetic notions (for example, a whole variety of character traits and other traits have been often remarked as being hereditary - intelligence, for example, being the most controversial trait that has significant hereditary association).

Dante's Divine Comedy
Does anyone know what translation of Dante's Divine Comedy was used for this article?

Requested move
Please note the following discussion from Requested moves, which may ultimately have a bearing on the location of this page (Dekimasu よ! 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)):


 * Lists of basic topics, Lists of topics, and List of glossaries were moved to portal space completely out of the blue and without any discussion taking place prior to the move. A discussion is underway at Lists concernng the apparent  contradiction between lists and WP:ASR (the guideline cited as the reason of the move).  Please move the lists back to their original locations until it is decided they should be moved from their original locations.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The main discussion over which namespace they belong in is at Wikipedia talk:Contents. I've asked for help with this issue at dozens of places over the last few months (namespace/list policypages, pumps, mailing list, individual admins, an RfC) without any solid consensus that The Transhumanist agrees with developing. More feedback there would be much appreciated. The other discussion that TT refers to is at Wikipedia talk:Lists. --Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below, and general idea remanded, per the discussion above. That is not to say that there shouldn't be an article at Self. Dekimasu よ! 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC) List of basic self topics → Self — This is the best general article about the concept of the self —Ewlyahoocom 08:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support most of the links to this page would support this. Ewlyahoocom 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, this is a list, not an article, and naming conventions for lists are they always start with "List of". Second, people searching for "Self" article would find it helpful to be directed to the dab page, since that contained all the articles named "Self" (before you removed them.) Crazysuit 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Must it remain just a list? There's huge overlap between:
 * Self (sociology) "...the self refers to an individual person from the perspective of that person..."
 * Self (psychology) "...in general the self refers to the conscious reflective personality of a person..."
 * Self (philosophy) "...broadly defined as the essential qualities that make a person distinct from all others..."
 * Self (spirituality) "...the self that is the ego...and the self which is sometimes called the "True Self", the "I" (or "I AM"), the "Atman", the "Observing Self", or the "Witness"..."
 * Soul "...the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being..."
 * Can't we have a nice article that summarizes and compares all of these & others? Ewlyahoocom 07:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to contest this. It is part of WP:LOBT. Auroranorth (!) 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

There first 9 links on the disambiguation page seemed to be developing into an duplicate of the article at List of basic self topics. I've already moved the articles and redirected. If there's opposition I can undo it. If there's support an administrator will need to do the move. Ewlyahoocom 08:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to replace those links since the disambiguation page should list all articles named "Self". Most people won't want to search through a huge list like this to find those articles. Crazysuit 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to
See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Atman I wonder why it is not mentioned at all in between all those selves.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.90 (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for outlines
Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The "History of" section needs links!
Please add some relevant links to the history section.

Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Old related talk moved to subpage
No, not really an act of archiving, since i didn't remove anything from this talk page. Rather, Talk:Outline of self/Former talk:Self (disambiguation) has been renamed from talk:Self (disambiguation), since it seems to have gotten lost in the course of renamings. --Jerzy•t 09:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'self' is 'I' and 'now'.
There are two ways in which the 'self' can be described. One is the relationship of the 'self' to the outside world and the other is analysis of the 'self' on its own. To see the 'self' on its own requires exclusion of the senses wqhich give contact with the material space time on the outside and it requires exclusion of the mind which gives contact with the immaterisl space time on the inside. In this case there are two elements of which the 'now' consists, namely the observer and that which he observes and which is himself as the 'self'. There is no consciousness of the difference between the two and the two are the identity of One in one static 'now', without yesterday or tomorrow and without outside or inside. There is no flowing time because time flows only when there is change manifested as the difference between two observations in two 'now'. In this case everything is within the duality of one static unit 'now' limited by the Nothingness on the outside. There is no consciousness of existernce of the observer's I which is the limit and the Nothingness contained within the 'now' as 'something'. Observation creates second 'now' containing four elements in two limited 'now', not one next to the other but one within the other. The observation creates change from the plurality of two, of the first static limited 'now' to the plurality of four elements of the second static limited 'now'. The change gives consciousness of existence of the 'self' in the flowing time between the 'before' and the current 'now'. Therefore the second 'now' contains the 'self' and the memory of that which was in the first 'now' KK (89.242.91.26 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines
"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a subject that was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally and for lack of asserted importance, because... (My apologies for the impulsive edits, and I'm sorry for not having enough time dedicated to reading Wikipedia style guides. Thanks for the flag it brought to my attention the biased tone, I have restructured my edits to be more neutral. Going forward it would be great to have the visual editor be an active editor, for e.g. recognizing a string of words that tends to be biased and notifying the editor of Wikipedia's best practices with direct prompts.) --73.146.144.233 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be deleted because it helped me explore different concepts of the self and discover new theories.

Vices

 * 1) Is vanity the same as pride?
 * 2) Is laziness the same as sloth?
 * 3) Is jealousy the same as envy?
 * 4) Is anger the same as wrath?
 * 5) Is selfishness the same as gluttony and greed?

So, in summary, do we need to collapse the vices into one level, or do we need another name for lust? (Personally lust is my favorite vice.)

How much of a vice is lust, anyway? Is it always going to be as bad as it used to be?

If we legalize lust, will the vice squad have more time to work on the other vices? 174.16.98.178 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Video Game Characters as Seen in Game Conformer
Some listed make no sense because of the good guy versus bad guy issue we had earlier. Get it? At home here in my room in space and such and such always seems to happen, thus the tv informer gets an issue like PIM or program guideline in the video games. What I am talking about is commercials. What's wrong with commercials. Nothing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:DFC0:6:5199:3020:D7FD:B042 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

New lead sentence
Change from: Self – an individual person, from his or her own perspective.

Change to: Self is the experience of one's own knowledge as an individual person, from his or her own perspective.

...This change is unencumbered encyclopedic prose...go for the consensus.Arnlodg (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've done some rewriting of the article. I am totally open to changing the firs sentence, if we can find a good definition? Editor2020 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The experience of being present...Arnlodg (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Rephrased lead sentence towards more neutrality lead; as found in active, passive and neutral states of self-knowledgeArnlodg (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Change lead sentence
Change from: Self – individuality, from one's own perspective.

Change to: Self is one's own experience.

45.49.226.155 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is this outline trying to be?
There's a mishmash of different topics here, and it's not clear that anyone who edited this article had quite the same idea of what an article on "Outline of Self" should include. It also doesn't seem like this was done with any sort of reliable source or reference in mind. Is this supposed to be based on any particular academic discipline? How would someone verify that any of the relations between topics on this outline were accurate or supported by sources? &#32;- car chasm (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)