There are 3 selves (identities)
1. Who others think you are (S_o)
2. Who you think you are (S_s)
3. Who you really are (S_r)

S_r = S_o + S_s

Do the math! Quite interesting.

Hm. I find your statement compelling since you dictate true identity as an additive substance, where here I thought "real" identity layed in the subtraction of one's more, uh, useless layers for lack of a better term.

I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on whether identity is linked with perversion, or vice versa.

Do the math!

To understand and give an answer to your OP, is necessary to look at psychology, because it seems that you are arguing that despite our real "selves" the others have a different notion of us. So, the line between illusion and real towards ourselves is blur.

Johari window is a technique to help the understanding when we interact with others and according to Charles Handy (author/philosopher specialising in organisational behaviour and management):

Johari House with four rooms. Room one is the part of ourselves that we and others see. Room two contains aspects that others see but we are unaware of. Room three is the private space we know but hide from others. Room four is the unconscious part of us that neither ourselves nor others see.

On the other hand, I don't know if we act perversely towards the way we see others. Probably we do. I tend to not care so much when I see others, but as Handy explains we will never know what others are thinking about us...

That's an interesting concept. Does it give any detail on how one might go about visiting each room? I think a major query I had that I didn't intially state in the OP is that, supposing a real identity isn't an illusion after all, what method could i use to display my real self on a day to day basis?

I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on whether identity is linked with perversion, or vice versa. — john27

I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear on opinion on this, as currently the implication completely escapes me.

I wish I am capable to answer your enquiries. Nonetheless, I am not so involved in psychology as other experts. I don't want to give vague answers to your interesting questions. The only conclusion I hold so far is that real identity only exists in us. Our real selves are the ones who are in the room three: the one which we hide from others. But, I don't know more information about this topic.

There are 3 selves (identities)
1. Who others think you are (So)
2. Who you think you are (Ss)
3. Who you really are (Sr)

Sr = So + Ss — Agent Smith

Don’t have an answer for the OP, and while I agree that the human self is in many a way interpersonal and multidimensional, the implications of this math feel off.

If the equation is right, then: A guy who is thought to be X by others and who thinks of himself as X then will mandatorily be X.

Won't necessarily apply if X is “a god” or “an extraterrestrial alien” or “a subhuman”. But to be more detailed: If a guy perpetually lies to himself and to others with enough cunning to make his lies convincing, if others thereby think him to be honest, and if he holds a psychosis in which he also thinks himself honest, does this then make this teller of lies an honest person?

As my example tries to illustrate, there seems to be more to the reality of personal identity - or at least some aspects of it - than the mere sum of thoughts (one’s own and others’) regarding it. For instance, personal identity will in part consist of existential facts regarding what one has intended and chosen so far in one’s life; thoughts, one’s own and others’, might either correspond to these facts or they might not - but thoughts per se can’t alter or otherwise recreate these facts.

That said, this is deep waters for me, and I’d rather not swim too far out.

Recently, I have been engaged in a plethora of relationships that all insist on the importance of small talk, creating a superficial expanse of which my real identity seemingly cannot traverse. — john27

Small talk certainly can be important. It's like a dance. It's not the content, but the near play of it, the feeling the other person out on trivia or not very important things. Getting sense of voice tone, how much emotion a person is comfortable with and what strikes them on that level. Hi, nice to meet you, I am depressed and I get the impression you're on the pompous side is something to work up to in baby steps.

If by relationships you mean you already know the person for a while and you are friends and partners, then the working you're way to being more open phase has passed - at least in some areas. But then the dance is still nice or can be. I think we can take these things way to literally. Like the two people are really conveying information. I think it's much more like grooming in apes.

These interactions have begged the question of if I WERE to cut across the other side, what would I find? What would constitute their real self? — john27

Do you mean 'if you went beyond small talk'? It seems here and above that the small talk itself is a way to meet the real other, in some people's opinion? I do think that can be true, but it's certain not the main moments one meets what many would call the real person. I suppose I can go with the facade and real personality model, though not always. I think it has pros and cons.

A part of me believes that a real identity is simply a convenient illusion, the other believes that any real identity is immensely perverted — john27

Can you expand on this. Convenient illusion I can understand in a very broad way, but how do you think it is convenient? then how is one's real identity - in general, as a rule, it seems here - immensely perverted? Or is the idea perverted?

However, that could also just be me projecting my innate perversion on the rest of the world... — john27

Or projecting what you judge to be perverted that others may or may not also 'have.'

That be true. We could all be delusional, rendering my equation useless. What's the alternative then? As far as I can tell, terium non datur, either I in my own eyes or I in the eyes of others. If both are wrong then that's all there is, case closed, oui?

Hm … do you then hold that human selfhood is Berkeleyan (“to be is to be perceived”) while reality is not? This where reality includes things such as human bodies and brains and facts (including facts of what one has previously intended and chosen)?

To me this seems too much of an ontological mismatch. And I’m personally not one for Berkeleyan immaterialism.

No, I'm not advocating a Berkeleyan perspective. The self may exist even when not perceived for all we know. However, knowledge (epistemology, not ontology) of the self consists of the self to the self or the self to others; there's no third alternative, unless of course, the tertium quid is God who, as is rightly thought of, possesses true sight (YHWH/Allah knows the true identity of each and every one of us).

However, knowledge (epistemology, not ontology) of the self consists of the self to the self or the self to others; there's no third alternative, — Agent Smith

Yet the same can be said of anything physical: e.g. knowledge of a rock consists of the rock to the self or the rock to others. But this does not then signify that a rock's "real identity" = "rock to one's self" + "rock to others".

As to a third alternative, I'll tepidly propose that personal identity is as subject to indirect realism as would be anything physical, consisting in part of aspects that are independent of particular thoughts or beliefs (of noumenal givens, as Kant might call them) and, in part, of aspects that are a directly construct of particular thoughts or beliefs. For instance, a self requires a first-person point of view, whatever that might ontologically be, that partitions reality into self an other - and this irrespective of particular thoughts or beliefs on the matter. On the other hand, that this first-person point of view is itself endowed with this or that attribute can then well be a full construct of the particular thoughts and beliefs - one's own and other's - in question.

Still, this would mean that the equation you've proposed is not fully accurate.

As you can see we run into trouble in trying to get a fix on the self - it's in the simplest sense the thinker and I'll leave it at that.

As for the equation, are you denying that the self to the self is the true self and also that the self to others is the true self? What's left then to be the true self? In me humble opinion combining the two selves makes more sense than opting for either alone even though both could be are illusions.

As you can see we run into trouble in trying to get a fix on the self - it's in the simplest sense the thinker and I'll leave it at that. — Agent Smith

Ditto, although I favor something more akin to the "awareness-er".

What's left then to be the true self? — Agent Smith

Maybe delving into these metaphysical waters would get us too close for comfort to certain so-called religious beliefs - here mainly thinking of the Hindu notions of Brahman and Moksha. Because of this, I won't insist on the matter.

In me humble opinion combining the two selves makes more sense than opting for either alone even though both [...] are illusions. — Agent Smith

Hence the crux: illusions to whom? To non-existing givens?

illusions to whom? — javra

Good question! Illusions to the thinker (the true self).

I think, maybe, we might now be in agreement? To use your own terminology:

If others think of the thinker A as ignorant, and if the thinker A thinks of him/herself as ignorant, then thinker A could well be wise instead of ignorant. A Socratic figure of sorts. Nevertheless, all the potential and actual illusions pertaining to what thinker A is will not dispel the existential fact that thinker A is … for thinker A must be in order to entertain the illusions, their own and others’, regarding what thinker A is.

Does this work for you?

The self is not predicable i.e. it can't be said of the self that it is wise or foolish. It is only and nothing more or less than a thinking thing.

I'd say sure, if by "thinking thing" one would include all forms of awareness as thoughts; thereby, for example, granting that lesser lifeforms are also thinking things. (I'm not big on Cartesian implications of the cogito.)

At any rate, good enough for me to agree.

I'd say sure, if by "thinking thing" one would include all forms of awareness as thoughts; thereby, for example, granting that lesser lifeforms are also thinking things. (I'm not big on Cartesian implications of the cogito.)

At any rate, good enough for me to agree. — javra

Well, looks like you have an agenda mon ami. Go right ahead.

Well the way I see it, as one delves deeper into oneself more primitive wants or needs become the motivations for various things we hold true to our identity. For example: I go to the gym to workout, which follows that I do so because I want to be revered, which follows that I do so because I want women to want me, Which follows that I just want sex.

Now obviously this isn't true of everyone, some people do just have good intentions not muddled by any innate senses of perversion. However, perhaps there is some truth to the illustration that certain actions we perform are funded by wants, desires we contain deep down.

The “real self” is already apparent. You are witness to it, conversing with it, and interacting with it. You need not traverse anything to find it. It does small talk and speaks of superficial things, as you, your real self, does in return.

There is a common notion that the content of one’s thoughts, his desires, urges, and instincts represents the “true self”, as if a man with suicidal tendencies is not being honest or authentic unless he has a self-inflicted gunshot wound. No; the true self is also the one that suppresses or sublimates such desires and instincts.

OK. While I do find your statement intriguing, from a mathematical standpoint I'm not sure I fully understand.

In the invent that Sr = So + Ss is true, then it follows that So = Sr - Ss. Where my understanding falters is that this would imply an identity given by others is discovered by the subtraction of my own display, which feels a little contradictory.

There are 3 selves (identities)
1. Who others think you are (So)
2. Who you think you are (Ss)
3. Who you really are (Sr) — Agent Smith

Curious. Note that 1 and 2 are thoughts, whereas 3 is not.

Try an analogy.

There are three dwellings.

1 is the architect's plan
2 is your address.
3 is the building you live in.

I would agree with that. Does this remain true in the instance my identity is not being observed by myself retrospectively, but by another? Would one need to have knowledge of my suppressions to acknowledge my true self, or does it not matter?

As I said we could be, probably are, deluded. The self is non-predicable. It can't be said to be this or that, it just is (patior ergo sum) ... as a/the thinker, a thinking thing.

Do the math! If the math says x then x it is, oui?

As I said we could be, probably are, deluded. The self is non-predicable. It can't be said to be this or that, it just is (patior ergo sum) ... as a/the thinker, a thinking thing. — Agent Smith

Yeah, whatever. I think you are missing my point. You are adding two thoughts together and creating reality. I don't think the world works like that. There are not three dwellings, but only one.You cannot live in an address or live in architect's plans. So your list does not work and your math doesn't work.

If I have a drawing of an apple, a photo of an apple and an apple, how many apples do I have?

Right, but the proof at which it says x = x I'm unsure with.

Well the way I see it, as one delves deeper into oneself more primitive wants or needs become the motivations for various things we hold true to our identity. For example: I go to the gym to workout, which follows that I do so because I want to be revered, which follows that I do so because I want women to want me, Which follows that I just want sex. — john27

In Freudian theory, that would be the 'id', 'the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories'. Nothing to do with 'perversion' as such although how it's channelled or expressed may be the result of a perversion.