Jul 19, 2023 17:12
10 mos ago
26 viewers *
English term
a system is a form of self
English
Social Sciences
Philosophy
relationship between self and systems
Dear colleagues,
I'm not sure about the meaning of a sentence in the passage below, taken from a book in intraconnection. The author says “a system is a form of self” and at the end of the passage, he concludes: “system as self”. I’m not sure whether I understood it correctly, because I would say: “self is a form of system”, which, however, would be something different...
However, in a previous part of the book, the author says “If our identity lens is wide-angle enough, we can see that we are the whole of this intraconnected system of reality, formless into form, across species, across time, across space.”
So maybe, the meaning is just that: every system is a form of self...
What's your opinion?
Thank you so much for all your help and patience!
***************
We can choose to honor and acknowledge the many systems that flow through us as we flow through them. (...)
The gathering of energy into a network of interconnecting components is what we call a “system”: a center of energy flow, with interwoven constituent nodes linked to one another across space and time. In this way, we can see how, in a very real sense, *** a system is a form of self *** – self as centers of experience; experience as energy flow; interwoven energy flow patterns gathering as a system: *** system as self ***.
I'm not sure about the meaning of a sentence in the passage below, taken from a book in intraconnection. The author says “a system is a form of self” and at the end of the passage, he concludes: “system as self”. I’m not sure whether I understood it correctly, because I would say: “self is a form of system”, which, however, would be something different...
However, in a previous part of the book, the author says “If our identity lens is wide-angle enough, we can see that we are the whole of this intraconnected system of reality, formless into form, across species, across time, across space.”
So maybe, the meaning is just that: every system is a form of self...
What's your opinion?
Thank you so much for all your help and patience!
***************
We can choose to honor and acknowledge the many systems that flow through us as we flow through them. (...)
The gathering of energy into a network of interconnecting components is what we call a “system”: a center of energy flow, with interwoven constituent nodes linked to one another across space and time. In this way, we can see how, in a very real sense, *** a system is a form of self *** – self as centers of experience; experience as energy flow; interwoven energy flow patterns gathering as a system: *** system as self ***.
Responses
Responses
+1
31 mins
Nicholas Laurier Eveneshen
Portugal
Portugal
Native in English
&
English
Specializes in field
Portugal
DE-EN Linguistic Specialist, MA
Native in: English (Variants: UK, US, Canadian) 
Works in: German to English, English
Related KudoZ points
:
4
Selected
a system is just like "self," an interconnected center of experience unfolding across space and time
Hi Haribert,
you're right to be a bit confused, as the author is rhetorically forcing terms together that, if you parcel them out as a truth statement, aren't actually valid, i.e. "A is a part of B; therefore, A is B" (this is false). By meshing these distinct terms together in a paragraph (system and self), the author is trying to convince you to conflate the terms together in order to garner a new understanding about "self."
However, in the spirit of understanding the text on the author's terms (e.g. by participating in their rhetoric), we could say that because systems are networks of interconnecting components flowing with energy and linking with other components across space and time, and the self is also a kind of system that undergoes all kinds of complex experiences across space and time, the self is also a system; therefore, you can understand a "system as self" and treat them as virtually the same thing. Thinking this way, you could indeed postulate that every system is a form of self, therefore integrally, inherently connecting the individual to the greater whole, and the greater whole to the individual.
I hope that helps!
you're right to be a bit confused, as the author is rhetorically forcing terms together that, if you parcel them out as a truth statement, aren't actually valid, i.e. "A is a part of B; therefore, A is B" (this is false). By meshing these distinct terms together in a paragraph (system and self), the author is trying to convince you to conflate the terms together in order to garner a new understanding about "self."
However, in the spirit of understanding the text on the author's terms (e.g. by participating in their rhetoric), we could say that because systems are networks of interconnecting components flowing with energy and linking with other components across space and time, and the self is also a kind of system that undergoes all kinds of complex experiences across space and time, the self is also a system; therefore, you can understand a "system as self" and treat them as virtually the same thing. Thinking this way, you could indeed postulate that every system is a form of self, therefore integrally, inherently connecting the individual to the greater whole, and the greater whole to the individual.
I hope that helps!
Note from asker:
| Thank you so much, Nicholas, for your valuable help! So, maybe I can translate literally to maintain the author’s rethoric... |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Carina Mariani
1 hr
|
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
: yes, this author has a way of trying to fit square pegs into round holes it seems. Can be quite oblique at times
6 hrs
|
| disagree |
Daryo
: that's not the point
18 hrs
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you so much, Nicholas, for your valuable help! Many thanks also to all other colleagues!"
+1
21 mins
Susana E. Cano Méndez
Spain
Spain
Works in field
Spain
Sworn (FRES) & Legal (EN>ES). EN>FR
Native in: Spanish (Variant: Standard-Spain)
Works in: French to Spanish, Spanish to French, English to Spanish, and 5 more.
a system is a form of individuality
Hi, found this at Collins'.
SELF
1. the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing
But I'm just guessing.
Good luck.
SELF
1. the distinct individuality or identity of a person or thing
But I'm just guessing.
Good luck.
Note from asker:
| Hi, Susana! thank you for your contribution! |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Daryo
: In essence, yes / the key part is the "distinct" bit - a "self" is defined by NOT being "the outside" // Kids become aware of their "self" when they realise that there is an "outside" distinct from them.
19 hrs
|
|
Thank you, Daryo.
|
1 hr
Richard VH
Venezuela
Venezuela
Venezuela
EN into ES Native Translator and MTPE
Native in: Spanish (Variants: Venezuelan, Standard-Spain) 
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish
human body Is a system
Sugerencia
Note from asker:
| Thank you, Richard, for your suggestion, although I think the author intends "self" not only as body... |
1 day 5 hrs
a system has its identity, is an entity distinct from "the rest"
a system has the characteristics of what would be called a "self" i.e. an entity that can be delimited from the "outside" and has its own continuity in time.
That's related to the question of what is "identity". It might sound like "trying to fit square pegs into round holes", but it's not. It's just a different level of abstraction.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 6 hrs (2023-07-22 00:04:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
whatever is in the rest of the text
"a system is a form of self"
can only mean that what is called "a system" has some characteristics that could make it a type of / a kind of something else called a "self".
BTW it's the interaction between the parts of the system that makes it a "distinct entity" (assuming that you're looking for an explanation, not a circular definition).
That's related to the question of what is "identity". It might sound like "trying to fit square pegs into round holes", but it's not. It's just a different level of abstraction.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 6 hrs (2023-07-22 00:04:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
whatever is in the rest of the text
"a system is a form of self"
can only mean that what is called "a system" has some characteristics that could make it a type of / a kind of something else called a "self".
BTW it's the interaction between the parts of the system that makes it a "distinct entity" (assuming that you're looking for an explanation, not a circular definition).
Note from asker:
| Thank you, Daryo, for your interesting remarks. However, I think that the emphasis is more on "interconnection" and "intraconnection" than on distinction. The author also says: "we sense the system as a whole, with the perspective of the whole, acting on behalf of the whole. Subjective sense, perspective, agency – the intraconnected self." However, I am aware of the fact that seeing only a fragment of a book doesn't make things more difficult to interpret. |
| oops! I wanted to say "does make things more difficult to interpret"... |
Discussion