The Means of Production: The Self

The Means of Production: The Self

By The Fool

The concept of morality, of an ethos that can be called “right” or “wrong” is something which is unique to, and a product of Self-Awareness. This concept is the force behind any ideology, and ideology is responsible for the perpetuation of any human system, be it of the individual, the culture, or any subset in-between. As morality is the driving force behind all social and personal systems, if one understands how morality functions, one understands how human existence perpetuates itself. However in order to understand how morality functions, one must define what morality is, yet because morality is a product of Self-Awareness, in order to define morality one must have knowledge of The Self.

The Self defined as analogues to Self-Awareness; being generated from the body, relegates the creation of The-Self to the body, and as the body exists after a preexisting environment that is its cause, it is held that the environment, not the self, determines morality. Yet this cannot be, for if morality is what determines the perpetuation of ideology, of culture, of the individual, and the preexisting environment determines morality, then there should be little observable disassociation between the morality which determines a culture, and that which determines the individual.

Individual behavior determined completely by a preexisting moral environment, should not show large variation between them, yet what one observes of the individual, is great variation of personal morals in context to the ideological values that determines a given culture. There are some who are completely aligned with the values of his/her host culture, while there are those who are forced to participate in their perpetuation by virtue of survival within the given system, not believing in the values by which the host perpetuates. There is such a diversity of values within individuals of a given culture; it is most improbable that the environment completely determines the individual, but that the individual can to some degree choose his/her own values.

The belief that the individual is The Self, has determined that The Self, and therefore any product of it; variation of individual values, novelty of ideas, changes to the means of production, are caused by the preexisting environment; consequently any change in culture necessitated by a change in the individual, is caused by a change in environment. Under this logic, the individual does not determine the means of production, but is determined by the environment; morals cannot be chosen, but are determined by environment; individual choice and behavior cannot act upon themselves, but are determined solely by the environment. [1]

This deterministic belief in reality has resulted in a complete negation of the truth; that we are already the means of production, that we have free-will to act upon our own reality and ourselves. This ideology of logic results in the conclusion that we are in essence slaves to the environment we are born into, and that we have no choice but to be governed our reality, that our lives are nihilistic in the truest sense of the word. Though this deterministic logic is sound, the conclusion it reaches; that The Self is the individual, is not founded in its own logic.

Our current psychological understanding in context of determinism holds that we are our behavior, and our behavior is controlled by brain-chemistry. When our environment changes, our brain-chemistry changes thus our behavior does also.
Despite this seemingly iron-clad logic, modern Psycho-analysis holds that the individual can choose to change his/her environment, therefore behavior is altered by the change in the brain necessitated by the change in environment. [2]
However the Determinist rebuttal states, because we cannot determine if the choice to change an individual's environment has been caused by the individual, or the perception of the preexisting environment we cannot assert that the change as been Self-willed... But here is where such determinism falls apart.

Determinism holds that the individual self is the environment, and because the scientific method deals in observable, material results, it is logically assumed that the individual self resides in the material environment of the brain, the brain existing within a pre-exsiting environment; our choices being necessitated by the behavior produced from brain-chemistry; the brain-chemistry being altered by a change in environment, all choices are therefore driven by the environment, and free-will does not exist.

Hypothesis: If free-will exists, then there should be obvious disassociation produced between the subsets of environment necessitated by choice, in contrast to those driven by the preexisting environment.

Evidence: Technology, for our tools are not found in nature, yet are used to perpetuate our environment. Agriculture, for it strips the nutrients of the soil faster than anything found in nature aside from cataclysms like a volcanic eruption. Civilization, for our social environments perpetuate themselves with obvious disassociation from all other natural environments. Climate change, for as our civilization has become global, and perpetuates itself dissociated from nature, our environment has begun to radically alter the natural environment, by virtue of competing means of evolution.

A strict determinist would argue that even if choice necessitates dissociative subsets of the natural environment, this does not prove that the individual has driven the choice, for as the environment exists before the individual, and our behavior which controls our choices is changed when the environment does… though choice may generate environmental subsets, they are still determined by the environment.

The logic of determinism is correct, but incomplete, for if the self is our behavior, and behavior is determined by environment, then The Self is our total environment, and The Self viewed as individual relative to the environment is a delusion created by our self-awareness, whose function is to disassociate The Self from environment, in order for choice to exists. If we are our behavior, and our behavior is determined by environment, then logically we are our environment, if this is the case then there is no logical bases to assume that the definition of self is relative to the individual, but logical to conclude that the self is in-fact our environment.

Because there is observable disassociation in the environmental subsets produced by our choices, relative to all other life on earth, and the thing which makes us truly different, truly disassociated between ourselves and other life-forms is our consciousness, our Ego, our Self-Awareness… It must logically follow that to be Self-Aware is to be aware of our Self, and as The Self is the environment, to be Self-Aware is to be aware of the environment. As subsets necessitated by Self-Aware choices produce such obvious disassociation in context to pre-existing environmental subsets, it must be that the effects of choice are determined by Self-Awareness, and as The Self is the environment, choice is literally the environment acting upon itself through Self-Awareness, or an awareness of itself.

The Self is environment, but to be Self-Aware is to have the capacity to generate subsets of an environment, generating new evolutionary circumstances, and thus perpetuating new environments. Let us say that there is a population of gazelle of which their food source is diminished by a brush fire. After the ensuing starvation period created by the fire, the remaining gazelle would be those who possessed the slower metabolism needed to survive the starvation period, thus the gene for slower metabolism is perpetuated among the population, and evolution is driven forward by what constitutes the survival of the species. Just as the environment generates new circumstances that determine the course of evolution for a species, so do our choices generate circumstances which alter the environment we live in. [3]

Ideology, as the driving force behind the perpetuation of culture acts as a consistent agent of environmental circumstance through time, determining the means by which people must perpetuate themselves. However as the values of an ideology arise from the collective understanding of a people, and as this understanding arises from Self-Awareness, which is necessitated by the choices one makes relative to a pre-existing environment, it must follow that our social environment, our culture, is determined by the collective choices of the individual in perpetuating the ideology of said culture.

Morality is the driving force that determines the perpetuation of ideology, for what is determined by a person to be “right” “good” “correct”, that person will choose over what is considered to be “wrong” “bad” “incorrect”, and in choosing one thing over another, said individual generates personal subsets of the pre-existing environment, perpetuating the choice within themselves and among the populace. The values of any cultural ideology are considered to be morally right in context to opposing values, and it is this concept of morality assigned to ideals, which act as unchanging environmental circumstances, determining the choices an individual can, or cannot make in context to the preexisting environment. [4]

Thus it may be said that morality is analogous to the perpetuation of an environment. However as Self-Awareness necessitates the generation of subsets from a pre-existing environment, constituting the perpetuation of personal as well of social values, and these values arise from the natural biological environment of the body determined by nature, it may be said that there is no single moral environment, but a multitude of competing/contrasting morals determined by Nature, Culture, and The Individual. Because the perpetuation of a single environment moral environment is analogues to what is morally right, yet a change of circumstance constitutes a change in the individual subsets necessitated by Self-Awareness, and therefore a change in the collective social values, there will always be contention between moral values. [5]

Ideology is a set of values, of ideas that are traditionally unchanging, for they are perceived to be morally “right” in context to what is morally “wrong”, which act as a limiting factor upon the subsets that can be produced from the individual. Because values are ideas which are unchanging, any ideological system seeks an absolute perpetuation of itself. If the values of a system do not accommodate for the inevitable change of personal subsets generated from a change in environment, and instead continue an absolute perpetuation, conflict is produced between the change in values arising from the Individual and the system of ideas that determine the current environment. Because ideological values are unchanging and seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, revolution is inevitable given that reality is change, and thus there will always be contrasting individual subsets of environment produced, generating ideological systems which seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves. Revolution is avoidable, if current environmental values are themselves the value to change according with the change of the individual subsets produced from choice. [6]

Though a change in choice may be determined by a change in environment, choices themselves are necessitated by individual Self-Awareness, which generate subsets of a preexisting environment, and thus constitute a change in environment. Because the individual constitutes a change in environment, individuals are the means by which society perpetuates itself, by changing itself, however because ideology naturally occurs by virtue of collective values which seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, and this is counter to the nature of living change which we are, a cycle of revolution of values naturally occurs, through the human-made social environment seeking to determine the means of which it perpetuates itself, instead of allowing the people, who are already the means by which society perpetuates, to change their own environment. This cycle of revolution will continue until that which determines the social environment; the people, are recognized by the social environment that seeks to determine them by an unchanging set of ideological values, and recognizes the people as that which is responsible for its creation.




Sources:

Feist, Jess. Feist, Gregory. Roberts, Tomi-Ann. Theories of personality 8th edition, Library of Congress, McGraw Hill pub, Chapter 16 Evolutionary Psychology, Chapter 16 Behaviorism. Pages 418-481. (2009)
[1] [2] [3]

Morrison, Ken. Formations of Modern Social Thought 2nd edition, British library, Sage publications, Chapter 2 Karl Marx, Pages 35-128. (2006)
[6] In context to our psychological understanding and the moral justification of ideology, it is clearly shown how Marxist notions of the means of production, and the inevitable revolutions that occur due to the separation of the means of production  from the people, is actually an attempt to understand the formation of culture and its perpetuation in context to the origin of effects that Self-Awareness produces upon reality. In reality there is no separation between the means of production and the people, but an attempt by the ideologies we create to sustain an absolute perpetuation.

Levitsky, Steven, Way, Luncan. The Durability of Revolutionary Regimes. Journal of Democracy, Vol 24, number 3. Pages 5-17 (2013)
[4] [5] This article clearly illustrates that members’ who participate in revolutions and the regimes hereafter view their involvement as moral, and justify the perpetuation of the ruling ideology on moral grounds.