Homo Viator (Man the Wanderer)

**theroombamifi** · 04-29-2012, 07:24 AM

We speak now of a fiction – the self, but a convenient fiction for understanding the ultimate truths. When we tell the story of the self, we enact another convenient fiction: the division of the self into the subjective self – the I – and the objective self – the me. The former acts while the latter is acted upon.

In its utter passivity, we might think of the objective self as a stone planted solidly in the soil with its face exposed to the elements. Imprinted on this self – its character – are material, and some might say spiritual, demands or commandments. By some grace, this first fiction – the subjective self – catches a glimpse of this stone and is in immediate conflict with that which is imprinted upon it. These commandments appear to express a conflict of desires. They confound his newly-realized subjective sense, and he is repelled by them. From this, we first speak of man as homo viator, a stranger and wayfarer who may travel as a pilgrim from and to an eternal order; may defy order as an alienated rebel; may assume the guise of a fool; or, be a victim of delusion. It is the drama of the subjective self glimpsing the inscriptions of the objective self and then walking away in disgust or distress.

A central conflict – that the subjective self is “liberation” from the objective self and the only means by which the demands of the objective self are satisfied – demonstrates the wretched and perverse sense of the subjective self. Man’s consciousness of his material existence – and properly the limitations of that material existence – create the desire for an independence of the subjective self. It is by the acts of the subjective self that it comes to feel total autonomy from the objective self and by which it proves its supposed dignity.

Just as the subjective self has journeyed as far as possible from its starting place – the crag of the objective self – it feels its total freedom. At the zenith of its independence, its supposed dignity and autonomy, the subjective self asks: “What’s going to happen?” or, more accurately, “What’s going to happen to me?” In this freedom grows the tyranny of anxiety. In its answers, the subjective self reveals the character – the inscription – of the objective self. At this point, we see what sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious. Here, at the apogee of the journey of the subjective self, can the first two resignations be felt as answers to those two puzzling questions. “What’s going to happen?” The Game will happen. “What’s going to happen to me?” The Game will happen to me.

A Convenient Fiction

We left man, at least his subjective self (that which acts), on a cliff far removed from his objective self (that which is acted upon) wondering what will happen and, particularly, what will happen to him. The subjective self is now reminded of its twin. In this anxiety comes the reassurance of the first two resignations:

The Game will happen; and,
The Game will happen to me.

Now we might speak about what is inscribed on the objective self, which we imagined as a rock buried solidly in the earth far away. The inscriptions on the objective self are the shadows of Fortune.

Man’s subjective self flees in terror because it is allergic to uncertainty, randomness, and coincidence. It doesn’t like to believe life is accidental. It abhors cosmic indifference. It wants to believe everything happens for a reason. It seeks causes. It seeks stories.

For this reason do we speak of the self as a fiction. The flight of the subjective self is a terror-filled, unthinking jaunt. Its return is much slower. It has at least two things — the First and the Second Resignations — to ponder. Every day of our lives we refine the grand narratives of our lives: the stories of who we are, and how we came to be. Most importantly, we craft a story in which we are noble protagonists: the essence of the subjective self. The story of self imposes order on the chaos of our flight, but it helps us to figure out our values and to make meaningful our return journey.

The Style of Players

The objective self – that part inscribed by Fortune and acted upon – experiences the color, splendor, and grandeur of the universe with naivete, awe, and admiration. This self seeks the unusual and wonderful in ordinary things and events. It knows itself as a singular being. In its singularity, though, is loneliness. The objective self, isolated as it is, cannot ally itself with intelligent, purposive beings. It is a silent watcher without in turn being watched. Its companion – the subjective self, the actor – has abandoned it with no certain return.

The subjective self – the actor and creator – in its flight from the objective self seeks mastery, particularly over the elemental natural manifestations of Fortune. In mastery, the subjective self hopes for dignity.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is a technique of living, a way of impressing society, knowledge of commanding respect and attention, and the capacity to make its presence felt. Anarchy and dignity are mutually exclusive, and so the subjective self expresses itself through the imposition of order. This dignity is achieved at its height by the creative majestic gesture.

In good times and bad, the subjective self turns its face to Fortune and finds Her remote, unapproachable, and enveloped in transcendence and mystery. Without the material weight of the objective self’s naivete, awe, and admiration – its reverence – the subjective self suffers.

The subjective self faces a hostile environment that requires company. The subjective self in its wandering must congregate, make arrangements, enter into treaties, sign contracts, and form partnerships. Thus do we say that companionability is the highest virtue: we are playful when we engage others at the level of choice, when there is no telling in advance where our relationship with them will come out. The subjective self learns to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions. To play the game man plays with man requires a complicated mix of closely calibrated altruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. Thus do we say – as the Third Resignation – Cheating will happen.

In the companionability of others, the subjective self learns the style of players. The style of a player describes all that he knows and believes about the situation he faces: who are the players, what are his and their available actions, what are his and their utility functions, and what are the beliefs of the other players about the situation. Since the player’s style describes his knowledge and beliefs, a player always knows his own type. In this way does a player form a company or fellowship: an institution in which a player might imitate, be held accountable, and receive feedback. To learn new ways, one must enter a totally different kind of community and begin imitating different kinds of behavior and ways of thinking. For this purpose the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
was founded.

Guile

We have laid out two important definitions: that of character; and, that of style.

Character is the sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious. As Webster's has noted:

It would be well if character and reputation were used distinctively. In truth, character is what a person is; reputation is what he is supposed to be. Character is in himself, reputation is in the minds of others. Character is injured by temptations, and by wrongdoing; reputation by slanders, and libels. Character endures throughout defamation in every form, but perishes when there is a voluntary transgression; reputation may last through numerous transgressions, but be destroyed by a single, and even an unfounded, accusation or aspersion.

The style of a player describes all that he knows and believes about the situation he faces: who are the players, what are his and their available actions, what are his and their utility functions, and what are the beliefs of the other players about the situation.

Now we endeavor to define a third component of homo viator: guile. The elemental nature of style – and the didactic endeavor of Societas Optimatum – is preparation for surprise. This preparation requires increasing readiness to meet the unexpected, to make sense of it fast, and to deal with it optimally. To be prepared in this manner is to have a better chance of seizing opportunity and face threat.

Let us speak about corollaries of our Resignations. We resign ourselves firstly: The Game will happen. This means that we must consider that we cannot control and plan everything. Secondly, we are resigned: The Game will happen to me. This means that we must accept that surprises are inevitable in our lives and that we ought to become prepared in our soul and attitude. To be obliged to be prepared is a component of Resignation 4: The Game is a gentleman's game. The gentleman grows the openness of his mind to the unknown because the curious are less often surprised than the sufficient.

As surprise is so powerful among people, why not learn to create it? Guile is the answer to this query, and in it lies the balance between Resignation 3 (Cheating will happen) and the obligations of Resignation 4.

Creating unanticipated change – cheating – includes winning against competitors or adversary players and yet it is much wider in scope. New objects and new meanings are invented. Rules are broken and usual patters are disobeyed. Surprise is the substance of all game strategies, and having the initiative of change is a strategic advantage. In one way or another all strategies work to prevent, steer, or originate unexpected change. Guile is the capacity to use this type of artful deception and astuteness to open
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
where a gentleman might transcend to the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: not to oppose the actions of others, but to initiate actions of our own in such a way that others will respond by initiating their own.

**RBM** · 04-29-2012, 08:03 AM

	Originally Posted by theroombamifi
	We speak now of a fiction – the self, but a convenient fiction for understanding the ultimate truths.

Another thread on 'the self', eh ? Time of the season ?

If all you understand is 'the self' as a 'convenient fiction' you might be surprised to learn there's more involved.

How's your philosophy, the mother of science ?

**theroombamifi** · 04-29-2012, 12:06 PM

Did you have any thoughts about anything after that sentence; or, was that premise too much of a hurdle?

**RBM** · 04-29-2012, 03:07 PM

	Originally Posted by theroombamifi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did you have any thoughts about anything after that sentence; or, was that premise too much of a hurdle?

To be truthful, after the OP's first graph I browsed the rest. I didn't see anything interesting. Indeed i noted some of the same rhetoric as some other newbies to the board:


	that the subjective self is “liberation” from the objective self

In other words, I plumb the topic incessantly from all perspectives I can. Have you read around the board ? Maybe done a keyword search ?

If not, that would be the typical behavior on this board. As a result my suggestions would be the outlier behavior.

My thoughts: The value in mapping the Self, all of it (subjective self + objective self, in your terminology) is to gather is all up and 'throw it into the trash can', so to speak.

The real gem is the No-self.

See Ya.

**theroombamifi** · 04-29-2012, 05:54 PM

Cool...thanks for the feedback. I posted this without really looking around and I should have done that. I appreciate the honest assessment.

**nowt** · 04-30-2012, 01:35 PM

Webster's said that, eh. Better than most of the derp round these parts.

**DeaconSyre** · 04-30-2012, 03:01 PM

I'm having the same problem reading the OP as I do with a lot of old philosophers' work; the assumption of agreement on foundation principles.

For instance, you split the self into subjective and objective parts and then describe them with metaphor and then keep building. This makes it hard for me to understand because metaphors are very loose descriptions.

Also, I don't like the second person perspective in my philosophy because it's implying that I agree with the concepts presented. This triggers an automatic self-defense mechanism (I am vigilant in monitoring the source of thoughts) that makes it harder for me to analyze the argument because I'm spending energy divorcing the words from myself in a way that a 3rd or 1st person perspective wouldn't require.

Edit: I'm still trying to read the OP, these are just my first impressions.

04-29-2012, 07:24 AM	#1
theroombamifi New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 28	We speak now of a fiction – the self, but a convenient fiction for understanding the ultimate truths. When we tell the story of the self, we enact another convenient fiction: the division of the self into the subjective self – the I – and the objective self – the me. The former acts while the latter is acted upon. In its utter passivity, we might think of the objective self as a stone planted solidly in the soil with its face exposed to the elements. Imprinted on this self – its character – are material, and some might say spiritual, demands or commandments. By some grace, this first fiction – the subjective self – catches a glimpse of this stone and is in immediate conflict with that which is imprinted upon it. These commandments appear to express a conflict of desires. They confound his newly-realized subjective sense, and he is repelled by them. From this, we first speak of man as homo viator, a stranger and wayfarer who may travel as a pilgrim from and to an eternal order; may defy order as an alienated rebel; may assume the guise of a fool; or, be a victim of delusion. It is the drama of the subjective self glimpsing the inscriptions of the objective self and then walking away in disgust or distress. A central conflict – that the subjective self is “liberation” from the objective self and the only means by which the demands of the objective self are satisfied – demonstrates the wretched and perverse sense of the subjective self. Man’s consciousness of his material existence – and properly the limitations of that material existence – create the desire for an independence of the subjective self. It is by the acts of the subjective self that it comes to feel total autonomy from the objective self and by which it proves its supposed dignity. Just as the subjective self has journeyed as far as possible from its starting place – the crag of the objective self – it feels its total freedom. At the zenith of its independence, its supposed dignity and autonomy, the subjective self asks: “What’s going to happen?” or, more accurately, “What’s going to happen to me?” In this freedom grows the tyranny of anxiety. In its answers, the subjective self reveals the character – the inscription – of the objective self. At this point, we see what sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious. Here, at the apogee of the journey of the subjective self, can the first two resignations be felt as answers to those two puzzling questions. “What’s going to happen?” The Game will happen. “What’s going to happen to me?” The Game will happen to me. A Convenient Fiction We left man, at least his subjective self (that which acts), on a cliff far removed from his objective self (that which is acted upon) wondering what will happen and, particularly, what will happen to him. The subjective self is now reminded of its twin. In this anxiety comes the reassurance of the first two resignations: The Game will happen; and, The Game will happen to me. Now we might speak about what is inscribed on the objective self, which we imagined as a rock buried solidly in the earth far away. The inscriptions on the objective self are the shadows of Fortune. Man’s subjective self flees in terror because it is allergic to uncertainty, randomness, and coincidence. It doesn’t like to believe life is accidental. It abhors cosmic indifference. It wants to believe everything happens for a reason. It seeks causes. It seeks stories. For this reason do we speak of the self as a fiction. The flight of the subjective self is a terror-filled, unthinking jaunt. Its return is much slower. It has at least two things — the First and the Second Resignations — to ponder. Every day of our lives we refine the grand narratives of our lives: the stories of who we are, and how we came to be. Most importantly, we craft a story in which we are noble protagonists: the essence of the subjective self. The story of self imposes order on the chaos of our flight, but it helps us to figure out our values and to make meaningful our return journey. The Style of Players The objective self – that part inscribed by Fortune and acted upon – experiences the color, splendor, and grandeur of the universe with naivete, awe, and admiration. This self seeks the unusual and wonderful in ordinary things and events. It knows itself as a singular being. In its singularity, though, is loneliness. The objective self, isolated as it is, cannot ally itself with intelligent, purposive beings. It is a silent watcher without in turn being watched. Its companion – the subjective self, the actor – has abandoned it with no certain return. The subjective self – the actor and creator – in its flight from the objective self seeks mastery, particularly over the elemental natural manifestations of Fortune. In mastery, the subjective self hopes for dignity. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is a technique of living, a way of impressing society, knowledge of commanding respect and attention, and the capacity to make its presence felt. Anarchy and dignity are mutually exclusive, and so the subjective self expresses itself through the imposition of order. This dignity is achieved at its height by the creative majestic gesture. In good times and bad, the subjective self turns its face to Fortune and finds Her remote, unapproachable, and enveloped in transcendence and mystery. Without the material weight of the objective self’s naivete, awe, and admiration – its reverence – the subjective self suffers. The subjective self faces a hostile environment that requires company. The subjective self in its wandering must congregate, make arrangements, enter into treaties, sign contracts, and form partnerships. Thus do we say that companionability is the highest virtue: we are playful when we engage others at the level of choice, when there is no telling in advance where our relationship with them will come out. The subjective self learns to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions. To play the game man plays with man requires a complicated mix of closely calibrated altruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. Thus do we say – as the Third Resignation – Cheating will happen. In the companionability of others, the subjective self learns the style of players. The style of a player describes all that he knows and believes about the situation he faces: who are the players, what are his and their available actions, what are his and their utility functions, and what are the beliefs of the other players about the situation. Since the player’s style describes his knowledge and beliefs, a player always knows his own type. In this way does a player form a company or fellowship: an institution in which a player might imitate, be held accountable, and receive feedback. To learn new ways, one must enter a totally different kind of community and begin imitating different kinds of behavior and ways of thinking. For this purpose the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. was founded. Guile We have laid out two important definitions: that of character; and, that of style. Character is the sort of thing a man chooses or avoids in circumstances where the choice is not obvious. As Webster's has noted: It would be well if character and reputation were used distinctively. In truth, character is what a person is; reputation is what he is supposed to be. Character is in himself, reputation is in the minds of others. Character is injured by temptations, and by wrongdoing; reputation by slanders, and libels. Character endures throughout defamation in every form, but perishes when there is a voluntary transgression; reputation may last through numerous transgressions, but be destroyed by a single, and even an unfounded, accusation or aspersion. The style of a player describes all that he knows and believes about the situation he faces: who are the players, what are his and their available actions, what are his and their utility functions, and what are the beliefs of the other players about the situation. Now we endeavor to define a third component of homo viator: guile. The elemental nature of style – and the didactic endeavor of Societas Optimatum – is preparation for surprise. This preparation requires increasing readiness to meet the unexpected, to make sense of it fast, and to deal with it optimally. To be prepared in this manner is to have a better chance of seizing opportunity and face threat. Let us speak about corollaries of our Resignations. We resign ourselves firstly: The Game will happen. This means that we must consider that we cannot control and plan everything. Secondly, we are resigned: The Game will happen to me. This means that we must accept that surprises are inevitable in our lives and that we ought to become prepared in our soul and attitude. To be obliged to be prepared is a component of Resignation 4: The Game is a gentleman's game. The gentleman grows the openness of his mind to the unknown because the curious are less often surprised than the sufficient. As surprise is so powerful among people, why not learn to create it? Guile is the answer to this query, and in it lies the balance between Resignation 3 (Cheating will happen) and the obligations of Resignation 4. Creating unanticipated change – cheating – includes winning against competitors or adversary players and yet it is much wider in scope. New objects and new meanings are invented. Rules are broken and usual patters are disobeyed. Surprise is the substance of all game strategies, and having the initiative of change is a strategic advantage. In one way or another all strategies work to prevent, steer, or originate unexpected change. Guile is the capacity to use this type of artful deception and astuteness to open To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. where a gentleman might transcend to the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. : not to oppose the actions of others, but to initiate actions of our own in such a way that others will respond by initiating their own.
theroombamifi is offline post a comment

04-29-2012, 12:06 PM	#3
theroombamifi New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 28	Did you have any thoughts about anything after that sentence; or, was that premise too much of a hurdle?
theroombamifi is offline post a comment

04-29-2012, 05:54 PM	#5
theroombamifi New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 28	Cool...thanks for the feedback. I posted this without really looking around and I should have done that. I appreciate the honest assessment.
theroombamifi is offline post a comment

04-30-2012, 01:35 PM	#6
nowt Suspended MBTI: iNtj Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 9,345	Webster's said that, eh. Better than most of the derp round these parts.
nowt is offline post a comment

04-30-2012, 03:01 PM	#7
DeaconSyre Member [28%] MBTI: INFP Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,130	I'm having the same problem reading the OP as I do with a lot of old philosophers' work; the assumption of agreement on foundation principles. For instance, you split the self into subjective and objective parts and then describe them with metaphor and then keep building. This makes it hard for me to understand because metaphors are very loose descriptions. Also, I don't like the second person perspective in my philosophy because it's implying that I agree with the concepts presented. This triggers an automatic self-defense mechanism (I am vigilant in monitoring the source of thoughts) that makes it harder for me to analyze the argument because I'm spending energy divorcing the words from myself in a way that a 3rd or 1st person perspective wouldn't require. Edit: I'm still trying to read the OP, these are just my first impressions.
DeaconSyre is offline post a comment