It is a challenge to throw aside all the ideas of oneself relating to others' opinions. Even if one seeks to do it, I wonder to what extent it is possible because as a person one is involved in group situations throughout most of life, like being part of an intersubjective bubble. It operates on so many levels, from early relationships with others to feedback during interaction and even basic fundamental values.

Perhaps, the possibility of it remains more so if one has secret aspects of experience, not shared with anyone. Also, one way of stepping outside of the network of narcissist self construction is in reflective writing because it gives a certain amount of distance, and seeing beyond what is projected onto oneself by others. Also, time in solitude may aid this, and it is possible that those who are less embedded in groups and group consciousness may be in a better position to become aware of a 'true' self as an ongoing nature of awareness.

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. — Jack Cummins

But what is the self in the first place?

I think what’s usually being asked with questions like this is: doing what you’d like to do or being who you’d like to be.

We all have a sense of how we’d like to grow or improve in some way— doesn’t have to be fancy or complex; for example, learning to knit, or losing some weight. This sense of who we’d like to be is related to what’s meant by our “true” selves, in my view.

When you’re doing what you’d like to be doing, you’re being true to yourself — to your professed values. Otherwise I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean — assuming the question makes any sense to begin with, which is arguable.

Nice thread @Jack Cummins

There's a problem in terms of how we think of the self when we think of it as something that can be found, like a Mars Bar that fell down the back of the couch. And it doesn't work any better when we make the Mars Bar into a gold bar or a diamond or whatever happens to be current and valued. When we project the "problem" onto the self, we distract from the context the self finds it in. The context is that which forms the space in which the self finds itself, and so forms the self, whether or not we consider it found. We are always already found and if something is wrong it is where we find ourselves. But it's a neat trick of contexts to render themselves invisible so that we absolve ourselves of the responsibility to change them while we focus on this nebulous Mars Bar that always disappears when we have the munchies. Erm, anyway :point:

To find one's true self is to confront that monster, and set it free from the prison of the unconscious. It is to face the fear and shame of oneself. — unenlightened

And to lose oneself is to look for it in abstraction, in ideology, in navel gazing, in allowing the unconscious to work freely under our comfortable habits so that the context which it has created for us can go on making us what we don't wish to be,

Doing what one enjoys doing is definitely a sign of being on an authentic path. I remember a couple of jobs which I did briefly which I loathed, trying to do my best. A friend was suggesting to me that I should try to cope with these as best as I could in order to make a living and concentrate on enjoying my free time. It didn't really work and I don't think that my managers thought very much of me. However, in one of the jobs I was told that I needed to do all the tasks which had been done by a previous colleague. I didn't feel that I was being given any opportunity to develop my skills in a unique way.

Some people seem to manage to do day, or even night jobs, in work which they detest. I am not able to do this easily and in some ways I wish that I could. If I dislike doing something I do badly at it, even going back to when I was at school I found this. I remember when I got 17% in a chemistry exam. Fortunately, my parents weren't particularly bothered because I had got a lot of other good marks and I never pursued chemistry beyond age 14. Some people seem so adaptable but all along I was inclined towards authenticity.

It is not just about jobs but also about relationships. If one doesn't enjoy being with another person on many levels it may be best to not pursue them too far, as it may be a disaster waiting to happen. I remember on my mental health nursing training course there were so many marriages between students and most of them collapsed by the time the course ended. I am inclined to try to avoid relationships if they don't feel authentic and social interaction which seems lacking in meaning.

I probably do too much navel gazing and it can be hard to spend too much time thinking or acting spontaneously. In the first place, when I left school I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster and couldn't get a work at all until I had done 3 voluntary jobs. Part of the difficulty can be getting the balance right. Some people seem to be able to make clear plans and follow them through consistently, whereas others seem to need to find direction more slowly.

However, even though navel gazing can be detrimental in some ways, it is likely that there is a lot going on unconsciously or subconsciously. Some people seem to be born with more of a leaning to live a life of questioning, with philosophy being an important part of this. It seems to make sense for those who are inclined towards philosophy to have more of a life of searching or otherwise philosophy would be simply an academic discipline, detached from the experience of life itself.

t is a challenge to throw aside all the ideas of oneself relating to others' opinions. Even if one seeks to do it, I wonder to what extent it is possible because as a person one is involved in group situations throughout most of life, like being part of an intersubjective bubble. — Jack Cummins

I suppose this is why many will say that the truly authentic self is an impossibility.

Some may argue that the authentic self is an impossibility but that is probably an exaggeration of the situation. People may not always be seeking authenticity in principle or by name. However, it is likely to be going on beneath the surface of conscious living because life involves trial and error. Making mistakes in life may be one of the side-effects of human life and the biggest snakes may arrive before the ladders. So, the only alternative to authenticity might involve giving up in defeat. So, most people struggle on and some have more failed experiments in life, but it is part of the learning curve of being a human being.

People may not always be seeking authenticity in principle or by name. However, it is likely to be going on beneath the surface of conscious living because life involves trial and error. — Jack Cummins

I am doubtful as to whether the seeking of authenticity could actually be going on at a subconscious or unconscious level. "Authenticity", or "true self", appears to be a conscious principle, which could only be sought by a conscious mind.

The issue I see with authenticity is the disconnect between the conscious level, and the other levels, which allows the conscious principles of action to conflict with the subconscious causes of action. This is how I would describe inauthenticity, this sort of self-confliction which results in hypocrisy, and people doing what they really do not want to do. This form of self-confliction can incapacitate a person in numerous different ways, starting with the simple lack of confidence.

It is related to trial and error, but it cannot be described simply as trial and error, though trial and error makes a good example. You can see that the conscious principle "I cannot proceed without certainty" if adhered to, would deny one the capacity of trial and error. However, at the subconscious levels we are "programmed" to proceed through trial and error because this experience is fundamental to the learning process. So we have a form of self-confliction here. We are naturally inclined to proceed without certainty, while the conscious mind wants certainty before proceeding. The self-confliction tends toward incapacitation.

As you can see, the problem is with the conscious approach. The consciousness wants something from the self, which the self cannot give. The consciousness demands the impossible. Therefore this type of incapacitation ought to be rectifiable through a change in the conscious approach.

So, the only alternative to authenticity might involve giving up in defeat. — Jack Cummins

This is sort of backward, because authenticity as described above, would actually require accepting defeat. To achieve authenticity, the conscious mind must accept that the goals which it has for itself are actually impossible, and therefore it must allow compromise. In a sense this is "giving up in defeat", but since the authentic human life is filled with mistakes and failed experiments, it is a move which brings us nearer to authenticity.

Temet nosce (Know thyself)¹ — Oracle of Delphi

Selfs

1. Who you really are [True self/Objective].
2. Who you think you are [False self/Subjective].
3. Who others think you are [False self/Subjective].

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I suppose when I speak of the potential defeat about authenticity it is not really the principle of authenticity but the underlying goals which have not been achieved. These are more about the tangible or practical implications rather than in practice rather than in theory. It is possible to seek fulfillment in an authentic way but end up unhappy with the reality of what occurs in real life.

The search for authenticity and knowing oneself may still result in the experience of the dungeon state, as described in the poem.

Yes, the issue may be who one is objectively or as one thinks one is or as others perceive one to be. It reminds me of a model which I remember being described in a model called Johari's window. Johari describes a quadrant based on self known privately, known to others and self, and the final box is the potential for the unknown aspects of oneself to be known to self based on the feedback from other human beings. It does lead to a closer relationship between subjective self knowledge and the objective.

However, it still may be open to question whether there is any real objective knowledge of any self because it is connected to the development of opinions, even if there is general consensus.

I don't think it is possible to not be yourself.

When we say someone is looking for their 'true self' there seems to be an underlying assumption that the true self is a more integrated and honest account of their identity, which would (presumably) result in a more genuine relationship with the world and with others. On reflection, I think all selves are true selves, it's just that some manifestations of one's identity and will are better suited to certain tasks than others. Even if you are projecting a self you think the world wants, it is still you making the choice to project and you that is contriving a self from your own psychic resources.

'Know thyself'

Would you agree serious observation results in no self? — ArielAssante

While I sympathize with the anatta (no self) doctrine (Buddhism), I don't quite understand it fully. I read some versions of the argument online but I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I disagree with the Buddhist definition of a self - it seems deliberately designed to prove anatta, a no true Scotsman fallacy or thereabouts.

Here's food for thought: Gravity doesn't recognize a self - there's no difference in the way you fall and the way a block of stone of equal mass falls. With respect to physics at least, anatta.

Interesting points. :up:

Maybe...

Who you really are = Who you think you are + Who others think you are.

Two wrongs don't make a right? :chin:

Anyway, each side (you & others) sees only half of you and the real you is a fusion of both. There are two sides to every story, eh?

I suppose when I speak of the potential defeat about authenticity it is not really the principle of authenticity but the underlying goals which have not been achieved. These are more about the tangible or practical implications rather than in practice rather than in theory. It is possible to seek fulfillment in an authentic way but end up unhappy with the reality of what occurs in real life. — Jack Cummins

I still think that the important and significant thing to recognize is the difference between what is possible and what is impossible. A person would not set a goal which one knows as impossible. The reality, in an ever changing world, is that those goals which are possible, and those which are impossible, are rapidly changing their status as time passes. This means that goals must be flexible, dropped or altered, at a moment's notice, as time passes, because an impossible goal is not a rational goal. In this way, the unhappiness of a failed goal cannot ever occur because as soon as failure becomes inevitable, that goal which is doomed to failure is rejected, altered or replaced, therefore no longer a goal. The point of failure is therefore never reached, because the failing goal is rejected and replaced with an obtainable goal before failure occurs.

Having flexibility, and the capacity to alter goals is very important to safety in a dangerous work place for example. The circumstances which dictate the degree of safety at any particular time, are never static. When the risk increases, and accident is possible, goals must be changed immediately. The capacity to perceive changes to circumstances which produce the need to alter goals, and to take immediate action on this need, I think is mostly derived from a type of intuition. However, the intuition may be honed, and is greatly increased through experience.

:up: In my understanding, no self entails no "true self" as well. How do you square anatta with your question about the "true self"?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Here's food for thought: Gravity doesn't recognize a self - there's no difference in the way you fall and the way a block of stone of equal mass falls. With respect to physics at least, anatta. — Agent Smith

This is not so true, because at the time of falling there are many possibilities open to the human being which the stone does not have. We can flail around, scream, grab for things, reach for a parachute, whatever. A stone doesn't have these options.

I think Heidegger had a lot to say about fallenness. It appears like Dasein has fallen into the world, or something like that. I think this is the process whereby authenticity is replaced by inauthenticity, it has something to do with being present in time.

This is not so true, because at the time of falling there are many possibilities open to the human being which the stone does not have. We can flail around, scream, grab for things, reach for a parachute, whatever. A stone doesn't have these options. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, we may protest in all and sundry ways but the tug of gravity - the force acting on you and a stone with equal mass to yours - will be the same. Nevertheless we maybe able to reduce counter gravity by increasing our air resistance via maximizing our surface area either by simply stretching out our limbs and assuming a prone/supine position or with the aid of a parachute or a wingsuit.

I think Heidegger had a lot to say about fallenness. It appears like Dasein has fallen into the world, or something like that. I think this is the process whereby authenticity is replaced by inauthenticity, it has something to do with being present in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

What be dasein?

The search for authenticity and knowing oneself may still result in the experience of the dungeon state, as described in the poem.

Yes, Jack.

By nature, “I” am very serious. At one time my approach might have been described as Teddy Roosevelt charging San Juan Hill. Smile! I thought this admirable too: ‘I take pride in this great wall’. After falling down the hill too many times to be counted, I saw that trying so hard was part of the problem. That is, I had not seen the extraordinary effort was: ‘I am ever busy building this wall all around…and for all the care I take I lose sight of my true being.’

There is something* driving me against which the walls are crumbling. There are glimpses of freedom sometimes only a brief moment, now hours, even full days. This makes it easier than before to continue to cooperate with that something. This is not to say there are no moments back in the dungeon state, and not suggesting you are trying too hard. All I can offer is my own experience.

*The reason I write about no self is because that something is not a self. — ArielAssante

Interesting stuff although I couldn't parse it to my satisfaction. Perhaps you identify with a future self - who you wanna be as a person - and finding your present self falls short of the mark, you deny that there's a self.

Indeed, we may protest in all and sundry ways but the tug of gravity - the force acting on you and a stone with equal mass to yours - will be the same. Nevertheless we maybe able to reduce counter gravity by increasing our air resistance via maximizing our surface area either by simply stretching out our limbs and assuming a prone/supine position or with the aid of a parachute or a wingsuit. — Agent Smith

The "force" is said to be the same, that's how the concept of "force" was created. But the effect of that force, on the stone vs. on the human being, is not the same, that's how we can walk upright. Since the effect is different, then we can say that the cause which is identified as the force of gravity is not the same in relation to you as it is in relation to a stone. Why this cause is different in relation to you, from what it is in relation to a stone, I don't know.

What be dasein? — Agent Smith

Heidegger's "Being and Time" is very difficult and there is as many interpretations of it as there are readers who claim to understand it. A quick glance at Wikipedia tells me that Dasein is "being-in-the-world". I believe he is commonly interpreted as saying that there are two types of things in the world, or more precisely two different ways of looking at things, those which are present-at-hand, and those which are ready-to-hand. Roughly speaking, things present-at-hand are all the things surrounding us which we are extremely familiar with, the day-to-day items we use on a regular basis, the things whose existence we take granted. Things we don't quite understand, and so we enquire into their nature, therefore things not taken for granted, are things ready-to-hand. You can see why I say, more precisely it's two different ways of looking at things, because the same items might be present-at-hand, or ready-to-hand, depending on one's perspective.

The "force" is said to be the same, that's how the concept of "force" was created. But the effect of that force, on the stone vs. on the human being, is not the same, that's how we can walk upright. Since the effect is different, then we can say that the cause which is identified as the force of gravity is not the same in relation to you as it is in relation to a stone. Why this cause is different in relation to you, from what it is in relation to a stone, I don't know. — Metaphysician Undercover

Muchas gracias señor for your valuable input.

I don't have data Watson. It's a capital mistake to theorize without data. — Sherlock Holmes

Roughly speaking, things present-at-hand are all the things surrounding us which we are extremely familiar with, the day-to-day items we use on a regular basis, the things whose existence we take granted. — Metaphysician Undercover

Boooring!

Things we don't quite understand, and so we enquire into their nature, therefore things not taken for granted, are things ready-to-hand — Metaphysician Undercover

Shocking!

The use of the word self may vary. It may be that there is no actual entity which can be spoken of, as the Buddhists argue. However, the idea of being one's true self may be more of a loose description, meaning that one is developing one's potential in a genuine way, as opposed to being chained by rigid demands of specific social roles and expectations.

The idea of not being one's true self may be the exaggerations of conformity. However, it is true that there are various sides to oneself which can be projected in different situations. I remember my mother saying that it is when you live with someone it is that you really know someone. She was meaning that people relax their fronts at home and are seen at various points, like when they get up first thing in the morning. I know that I feel barely human until I have my first coffee.

One aspect of self projection which is also worth discussing with you is the professional role personas put on, especially as mental health professionals. I remember when I was doing my mental health nursing training, a tutor told the class that we would find that our 'self' would change by the time we had qualified. To some extent, I thought that I changed, especially in what I said or shared with people, especially patients. I was never that sure about the idea of being a role model, because each person is unique. I do act and think a little differently out of work, mainly in what I disclose about myself. I am less tidy in appearance at work, although I don't think that I presented myself in a corporate way.

At present, I am not working and I would rather pursue a different path to being a nurse, but I definitely would consider still working with people with mental health issues. As it is, at present, because I am not working I have probably gone a bit outside of feeling that I think and act like when I was working. However, I still live in the area where I worked. This means that I meet people who I nursed in the past. They still come up and talk to me, and many don't know that I don't work in the hospital now, so when I am speaking with them, I do feel that I am back in the mental health nurse persona in a conscious way.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Well, here's an option I didn't think of until now - we're at full liberty to reject our self as not who we are and that for no reason at all but because we want to. My life, my rules; my body, my wish ; you get the idea.