person: an individual human
mind: the aspect of consciousness a human experiences that thinks it’s a person
This mind-thing has been problematic.
Perhaps it’s time for the mind to address a question its long-suffering person wouldn’t normally think to ask: Am I a conscious person experiencing a mind? — or a conscious mind experiencing a person? Simply, as individuals, do we identify as a person or a mind? Or if a blend, who’s dominating?
Usually, especially when prodded with such a question, mind: “Well — right now I’m a mind wondering how I could be a person and not a mind. But this isn’t a pleasant line of inquiry — so what’s for lunch?”
The problem with identifying as a mind is that we’re then completely at its mercy — stuck with all its judgment, bias, misperception, and irrationality; and notably, its presumptuous view that it’s the one doing the existing. But if we identify as a person, at least we have a chance to keep an eye on what our mind is up to. We can think “but — the thing that isn’t supposed to happen just did” or “hold on — what makes you so sure that’s true?” or “wait a minute — you want me to do what?” Identifying as a person helps us assess how much our mind actually cares for the person whose existence it would supplant.
That said, having already abdicated personhood to our mind, how do we convince ourselves that it’s primarily a person, not a mind, that experiences consciousness, understands the world, or could benefit from doing so? Once functioning in the world as a mind, we obviously can’t use it to give up mindhood. “Seriously? — after all the thinking, reasoning, and what understanding I’ve managed to gain, you think I can reason my way into understanding that I’m not a mind?” snort
Maybe a little existential honesty might help. In hijacking our existence, our mind also presumes to exercise whatever agency existence might grant us. But when has a mind done anything at all in the absence of a person? Can we even trust it to do any unattended thinking? — the thing it thinks it does the best? “I’m experiencing problematic thinking” is unthinkable as a mind — a cognitive nonstarter that excuses us from any serious self-examination. Yet as a person the thought might prove helpful in the long run.
If I’m a person experiencing the world, and my mind can’t be trusted to accurately represent the world to me, then what could I trust? The world itself? If as a mind I can’t trust the world to be what it actually is, could I do so as a person? Maybe then my mind could learn some useful things and help my person better apply the transient gift of agency.
For sure this will take some practice. Trusting the world to look after us isn’t easy — for a mind incognizant of all that the world’s invested in the creation of a person. And being “mindful” won’t work if again it’s just a mind doing all the practicing and expecting all the existential rewards. “If I could just extend my existence beyond this person, I could reach the pinnacle of being!” all the while allowing our person, the one who could actually experience enlightenment, or suffer the lack of it, little say in the matter.
Speaking of suffering, our mind sincerely wants to be a person — so long as it’s pleasant. It likes the heady experience of “I exist!” but doesn’t want any involvement in the difficulties of the actual being. When “this sucks” our mind will work very hard to escape participation — or liability — and any scapegoat will do — the idea of itself being the most convenient: “I shouldn’t be suffering! But I am — who’s saying I shouldn’t? That’s your egoic mind. So my egoic mind is lying to me? Right — fix that and you won’t have to suffer. Wait — who?… Never mind. I want ice cream.” As we experience suffering, and our mind, insisting it is us, simply wants to reject the experience, who’s left to cope with it? Who would be motivated to figure out what led to said suffering and do something about that? It could be worse though. The other possible scapegoat for wrongful suffering is the world itself— the thing giving us a shot at existence in the first place. And honestly when has “reality sucks” ever encouraged it to favor our participation? Maybe as a person I might accept suffering as a caring world’s attempt to inform me how to not suffer — hoping I will follow through on the advice.
If as a mind I can’t trust the world, and I’m not taking such good care of my person, am I being disloyal to both? After all my person is of the world. Could I be also, by simply joining with my person in deferring to reality?
With the world being the totality of what could be experienced (the person’s job) and the only source of information about the experience (the mind’s job); as existential priorities, the world-as-is comes first, then the person as an aspect of the world, then the latently helpful mind correctly interpreting the world for a person who would better adapt to it. It could all be such a beautiful upward spiraling evolution.
So with the whole business of experiencing consciousness, understanding the world, and benefiting from it, instead of trying to be the sole identifyee, exister, and sayer of all things, our mind could take the more humble position of “thanks for having me along — what can I do to help?” Our person would be more “glad to have you!” And the world, approving its more functional creation, This I can work with.
Then there’s the plural case to consider:
Are we all persons experiencing the same world including the personal experience of a mind? Or are we minds, each experiencing a personal world that includes other people?
Another major problem with identifying as a-mind-that-would-be-a-person is that all other people fall into the category of vexing aspects of a mind-derived world that need correcting. Thinking it’s the center of all the action, my mind would be the boss of not just my existence, but yours too. Even better, all these other people make perfect scapegoats for my faultless mind, though every one of them wants me to serve the same purpose. What could possibly go wrong? snark
But could we more consistently identify as a person, not mind, wouldn’t we automatically identify each other as such? If I’m a person experiencing a challenging world, including less than optimal mental processing, and so are you, then don’t we have all this in common? And isn’t this what we all really want: to be identified and treated as a person who could use a little help with existence and forgiveness when we exhibit poor judgment, bias, misperception, or irrationality? “There, with the grace of the world, go I.” Thus less mind-identifying and more unified in a shared world we could convert all our mind-begat self-interest — personal, cultural, economic, spēcial — into us-interest. Then the world would be, about being human, Okay — this I’m proud of.
Summation
Is the human mind a real thing? It sure wants to be.
Yet the mind is not a stand-alone conscious thing — though it is a real phenomenon. The mind is an aspect of consciousness that a person experiences. The key point here is that the mind is something experienced, not the thing having the experience. And the mind needs to be constantly, or at least occasionally, reminded of this fact. Ideally it’s a person doing the reminding: “I’m a person experiencing a mind, and I need to use it for its intended purpose: not to itself experience reality, but to understand the experience on my behalf.” Failing this, it falls entirely to reality to enforce said understanding: Oh is that what you think? Okay mind-possessed person, here’s how things really are. . .
We bring ourselves so much needless trouble by trying to operate as mind-things when all along we’re mind-experiencing person-things. And at our best, we’re reality-assimilating people-things.