The Two Paths: No Self versus extended Self
Sometimes we can get to the same place taking opposite paths.
One path is the Buddhist belief that “self” is a delusion.
The objects with which people identify themselves—fortune, social position, family, body, and even mind—are not their true selves. There is nothing permanent, and, if only the permanent deserved to be called the self, or atman, then nothing is self.
Buddhists set forth the theory of the five aggregates or constituents (khandhas) of human existence: (1) corporeality or physical forms (rupa), (2) feelings or sensations (vedana), (3) ideations (sañña), (4) mental formations or dispositions (sankhara), and (5) consciousness (viññana). Human existence is only a composite of the five aggregates, none of which is the self or soul. A person is in a process of continuous change, with no fixed underlying entity.
Compare this central tenet of Buddhism with a broader definition of “mind.” In a book called Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again (1997), philosopher Andy Clark makes the case that there is no basis for conceiving of the mind as bounded by skin and skull. Clark cites Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
Our own body is in the world as the heart is in the organism . . . it forms with it a system.
Admittedly, we do many of our basic activities—e.g., walking, reaching and looking—as individuals. But what about activities involving advanced cognition, such as “voting, consumer choice, planning a vacation or running a country?
To accomplish these higher order activities, we
…create and maintain