personhood

[henry quirk]

what is a person?

[roydop]

The ego. A convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.

An illusion. The temporary forgetting of true Self so consciousness can play vicariously through the fictional character "your name here".

[henry quirk]

The ego. A convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.

An illusion. The temporary forgetting of true Self so consciousness can play vicariously through the fictional character "your name here".

well...okay

-----

there's a few ways to look at it, but definitions of personhood mostly seem to fall into one of three categories...

one is exampled by what roy posted: I call it the zen category

a second category is exampled by folks who claim personhood is solely a legal construct: I call it the bestowed category

the last is exampled by folks like me who claim there is a particular & peculiar sumthin' present in, and inseparable from, certain kinds of living things (like man) that sets these living things apart from all the other living things: I call it the ensouled category

am I missin' anything?

[roydop]

Personhood is the convoluted collection of thoughts that project the illusion of a separately existing object.

The "particular & peculiar sumthin' present in, and inseparable from, certain kinds of living things (like man) that sets these living things apart from all the other living things" is Self-Awareness. This is the realization/experience that Self is not the body/mind complex. For almost all humans this awareness is buried deep under the distraction of thoughts and sensations.

There aren't individual souls popping in and out of existence. There is a singular consciousness/Awareness and worlds arise and pass within that Singularity. It's like a bunch of audience members watching a single movie on a screen, except in converse: There is a single consciousness watching many movies. Each first person perspective is itself a distinct world. So when Enlightenment/liberation is realized, that world line can end without the others being much affected.

[henry quirk]

Personhood is the convoluted collection of thoughts that project the illusion of a separately existing object.

The "particular & peculiar sumthin' present in, and inseparable from, certain kinds of living things (like man) that sets these living things apart from all the other living things" is Self-Awareness. This is the realization/experience that Self is not the body/mind complex. For almost all humans this awareness is buried deep under the distraction of thoughts and sensations.

There aren't individual souls popping in and out of existence. There is a singular consciousness/Awareness and worlds arise and pass within that Singularity. It's like a bunch of audience members watching a single movie on a screen, except in converse: There is a single consciousness watching many movies. Each first person perspective is itself a distinct world. So when Enlightenment/liberation is realized, that world line can end without the others being much affected.

well...okay

anyone else?

as I say: have I missed anything?

[FlashDangerpants]

anyone else?

as I say: have I missed anything?

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.

If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.

But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.

[henry quirk]

anyone else?

as I say: have I missed anything?

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.

If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.

But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.

so what?

it's the journey, not the destination

[FlashDangerpants]

anyone else?

as I say: have I missed anything?

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.

If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.

But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.

so what?

it's the journey, not the destination

I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.

[Impenitent]

personhood... Leatherface's masks...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.

If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.

But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.

so what?

it's the journey, not the destination

I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.

I know.

We have Roy, representin' the Zenists; you, representin' the Bestowers, me, representin' the Ensoulists.

I'm waitin' on other reps who may have different takes. For example: Mannie falls into the soul camp, but his notions and mine are not interchangeable. B, I'm thinkin', is with you in the legalistic camp, but she may not see eye to eye with you completely.

My point: ain't no reason to rush willy-nilly into hot & heavy conversation. The dinner bell was rung: let's see who else turns up at the table.

[henry quirk]

personhood... Leatherface's masks...

-Imp

[commonsense]

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define. The only single criteria that counts seems to be acceptance by other persons as one-of-us in some sense, but that's on a sliding and alterable scale. Think of it like a checklist with 100 boxes for stuff indicative of internal mental activities and external behavioural ones and all that boring crap. Maybe some people get 100 ticks in those boxes, but any 70 ticks is an arbitrary but sufficent quantity.

If you beleive in incoporeal souls then your personal choice of checklist really only needs one box to tick. That's convenient if you want to include coma patients with neither mental activity nor much by way of external behaviour, and 12 week zygotes, all while excluding 'non-human persons'.

But personhood is still a self elected category, created by persons to describe themselves as a group containing individuals, and the criteria are always at risk of alteration.

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.

so what?

it's the journey, not the destination

I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.

Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.

[henry quirk]

Personhood is likely going to prove impossible to accurately define.

so what?

it's the journey, not the destination

I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.

Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.

but is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?

that's what I wanna get into some back & forth about...once more folks come to supper

[commonsense]

I gave you my definition along with an explanation of why it isn't more concrete. A person is that which existing persons choose to recognise as similar themselves in some respect of personhood. The persons who get to do the recognising of said personhood are a self elected set of existing persons, and the criteria for recognition are are whatever they choose at the time.

Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.

but is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?

that's what I wanna get into some back & forth about...once more folks come to supper

I see what you’re saying. I just think that persons who have already established their personhood must decide who else is a person, and this consensus is in effect a de facto law and therefore pretty much legal.

[henry quirk]

Well said. The concept of personhood may have begun elsewhere, but it has become a legal matter, a question of rights and entitlements.

but is that all it is? is a legal definition the sum of personhood or does it go deeper?

that's what I wanna get into some back & forth about...once more folks come to supper

I see what you’re saying. I just think that persons who have already established their personhood must decide who else is a person, and this consensus is in effect a de facto law and therefore pretty much legal.

again: is this legalistic, bestowed, personhood the sum of it?

I believe, with reason, there's more to it than that