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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 fairly impressed by the Buddhist idea of anatta, or no self, and Buddhist philosophy of mind in general. I have just begun reading a book called 'The Mind Illuminated', by John Yates, Matthew Immercut and Jeremy Graves (2017). It is an exploration of Buddhist understanding of consciousness alongside the ideas of cognitive neuroscience. It is a large hefty volume to read but I do see this area as an important one for understanding the mind, body problem, especially subjective experience.

I hadn't read Giddens until I came across the book in a charity shop a few months ago. I found it worth reading and, a little later, I came across Laing's 'The Divided Self' which was along a similar line of thinking.

The idea of the self is often seen as an aspect of psychology and as one of philosophy to some extent. However, the aspects of sociology are also important too, especially the the idea of the social construction of reality. This includes social life, including gender construction, ideas of deviance and the sociology of religion. When I did study sociology the sociology of knowledge went into aspects of epistemology too. Some writers within the tradition of sociology do explore the nature of subjectivity in relation to a sense of otherness, such as GH Mead. Also, Erving Goffman's understanding of the social presentation of self in everyday life do explore the social construction of human identity.

My own interpretation of how Schopenhauer comes to see the will as the 'thing in itself' is through the idea of it being an imminent reality in mind/body consciousness. This is different from seeing as it as being transcendent and separate and, possibly unknowable.

It may be that the issue of authenticity is related to Jungian individuation more than any other approach. It does seem that some people go down this path accidentally and like you, I did and found Jung's writings helpful on the way through many of the difficulties.

The shadow is the most difficult part of the process of knowing oneself because it can be a form of destructiveness on many levels, including selfdestructiveness and may include addiction or even suicidal ideas. Alternatively, it may be about bringing up anger and not in a destructive way towards self or other but as a way of positive energy as empowerment. My own experience of the shadow involved a time of listening to nu metal music and going to see live metal and punk music. It felt as if through doing this I was seizing a raw energy, as a way of transmuting it positively.

It is possible that thinking that suffering has meaning may set up a wrong mindset, one leading to the expectation and acceptance of struggle. It was expressed in the Christian idea of picking up your cross and carrying it daily. Ideas of martyrdom also prevailed with the belief of being rewarded in an afterlife.

Nevertheless, even if one wishes to have joy and happiness life often comes with so many obstacles, such as sickness and death of others. So, many philosophers and thinkers, including the Buddha and Schopenhauer have begun their thinking from the problem of suffering, more so than Christianity which sees sin as the most basic problem. It is hard not to give up amidst suffering and it can bring about despair.

One important writer on meaning in suffering is Victor Frank, who wrote after spending time in a concentration camp. He argued that establishing goals amidst unbearable circumstances was a way of finding meaning amidst the most harsh and brutal life experiences.

Welcome to the forum and I hope that you find some interesting discussions.

Jack

Perhaps, the notions of God and the devil serve as guiding ideas about the heights and the depths of the possibilities for becoming, and individuation is about weaving through these extremes. Some may gravitate more towards the devil figure and some more to God, even without necessarily believing in these literally as metaphysical beings. It may be that the human quest is mythical and life experiences are narrative stories in the creation of narrative identity subjectively.

It is a good question whether it is one's lesser self or not which is seeking ways of coping. It make involve reasoning but also deeper, less conscious aspects of motivation. This is where the issue of will and the unconscious come in. I sometimes find that I get illnesses, like infections and viruses when I am stressed and it is like my deeper sense of self is trying to slow me down and allow rest. Even accidents can be seen in that way but, of course, it is all about interpretations of experience. It is almost like the unhelpful defense mechanisms have a place, or the aspects of false self are an important opposition in the ongoing journey of becoming, especially as mistakes can be important lessons in life.

There is the issue of egoism versus altruism and how this relates to human nature. Getting the balance between one's own needs and other beings, moving towards the larger spheres of humanity can be an ongoing conflict. The basic needs can be difficult to meet at times and knowing how much to give and take is difficult and determining one's own genuine needs. It is hard not to swing to extremes and the Buddhist idea of the middle way can be useful but it has to be negotiated in all the lopsided aspects of living as a member within various overlapping subgroups of other people.

Dependency or independence is a conflict. As a teenager I used to be extremely close to my parents and trying to please them. I was an only child and my parents had me when they were almost 40. I left home to study when I was 19 and I think that my parents expected that I would return home after studying and they were rather disappointed that I wished to stay in London. One aspect which I chose not to have shared with my parents was my questioning of religion and Catholism. I have been unsure whether this is cowardice on my part or protecting them. However, it has always felt the best way on an intuitive level.

Dependency and co-dependency in relationships and friendships can be problematic for most people. It can be that or a less social life which can go as far as isolation. It is hard to get the right balance. I haven't had many long term relationships but have found that it can be difficult if a partner is jealous about all other social interactions. I do have friends who have fairly serious mental health problems and phone me late at night often. It can be difficult to negotiate boundaries in friendships, and it can also be hard to find the right places to even find friends, and knowing who to trust, as one of the aspects of finding an authentic place in an upside down world.

It may be that there is no 'true' self and it is a mythic concept. The problem may be more where people have developed such a fragmentary or fragile self that it becomes unstable. However, this may not be a fault of finding the self but a variety of factors involved biological and social circumstances, including trauma, especially in the early years and the damage done to the internal structure of object relations.

It is interesting to hear how loss of belief in God made you less egocentric. I am sure it can go in many different ways. Belief in God can lead to some forms of dogmatic arrogance and inflated sense of oneself in the relationship with the divine.

Narcissism is in itself a complex topic because it comes in various forms, and one book which I read on it is, 'The Fragile Self: The Structure of Narcissistic Disturbance', by Phil Mollon, which looks at disturbances in the sense of self. This traces it back to childhood and some of the ways one develops a core sense of self. Mollon explores Freud's idea of religion as playing a role in illusions rather than reality. Of course, the reality of social life in itself may be a source for the need for comforts of many kinds, including escapism, including addiction as well as religion.

Religious ideas may involve guilt and its management and suffering itself may be one of the biggest existential problems, and one of the most helpful forms of coping with the subjective sense of self may be the arts, including listening to music.

I haven't read Weber but I learned a little about Calvinism in history. One aspect which I do think comes into play is the context of values related to the basic economic structure of social life. In particular, this relates to consumer materialistic society. Baudrillard spoke of the way in which images of consumerism affect the nature of human identity, with people buying products which include status symbols, such as property and cars. These all affect the sense of self in the way of being tokens of 'happiness' and he points to the shopping mall as being seductive in the pursuit of finding pleasure and contentment, in the context of individualism and materialistic values.

The idea of heteronomy is interesting because as the opposite of autonomy it is worth thinking about the forces which impact on human beings and choices.

Also, since discussion on a previous thread I have read Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. It does have bearing on the this thread because how one sees the 'thou' influences the nature of subjective reality and identity. What I thought about was how when I was a teenager I used to pray a lot and I often thought of myself in communication with God. That didn't mean that I didn't care about the opinions of others as much as later. So, in some ways the loss of God as the significant other may lead to a far greater narcissism, with the opinions of others often being the significant mirror, although that doesn't rule out the idea of self in relation to the wider nature of reality, whether it is seen as the divine or, the realm of the intersubjective, or however, reality itself is understood.

I am not necessarily referring to the 'best' self because that may be about the ego ideal, almost with a moralistic overtones. However, it may be about bringing out potential, so it is about some kind of reaching for the heights, but this is where it gets complicated because it is not about morality as such, but about finding one's calling in life and some have spoken of finding vocation. As far as I can see, the quest for authenticity involves juggling of all of these and it is likely to be a difficult quest for some. It may be that it is hard to achieve, like the U2 song title, 'I Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For'.

One writer who Laing draws upon is Lionel Trilling, who looked at the difference between sincerity and authenticity. Trilling suggests that there has been a move from the value of sincerity to authenticity. With the idea of sincerity there was an emphasis on trustworthiness and being true to one's word. Authenticity is more about finding oneself through experimentation.

Trilling and Laing were writing in the twentieth century and identity and meaning have probably shifted. There may be a greater degree of fragmentation of identity, especially in the context of online communication often replacing face to face interaction. Individualist values may be strong but probably with a greater degree of anonymity and amidst the masses there may be often the feeling of being a number; with this depending a lot on the community in which one lives and whether one has quality relationships.

I agree that the self IS in relationships and it can be hard to stand back from it and, here, may a lot of blindspots. It is not as if everyone analyses themselves. The most obvious problems are when someone has such problems that the self fragments, which can lead to some kind of breakdown, especially in the form of psychosis. Laing's writing was important in this respect, showing how people are given confusing messages. This involves double binds and it has also been looked at in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. A double bind can be a person being told that they should seek happiness, but, at the same time being given loads of restrictive rules.

RD Laing spoke of the idea of the true and false self, but I believe that the actual idea was developed by the psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott. However, going back to ancient times, Plato spoke of being true to oneself.

The effects of family and community are profound. For example, gay and transgender people may sometimes try to deny this side to their lives out of pressure, especially if they are from religious backgrounds. In particular, I have met people who were gay and of African descent and they told me how to be open about themselves was a likely means of being ostracized from the community. Also, in Muslim culture, people are often forced into arranged marriages under extreme pressure.

Generally, there is more opportunity for stepping outside of social groups and backgrounds in Western culture, in the context of liberal values. However, people who challenge the social norms of social groups may experience certain costs, such as rejection.

Yes, I am not sure how helpful the term ego, and I guess this may depend on how ego and egoism is defined. It also, may vary at different stages in terms of the importance of goals. For example, in Eastern traditions there was more of an emphasis on the spiritual aspects of oneself later, after worldly goals had been achieved. It may be more fluid in Western culture and following ideas of truth may be an ongoing quest, involving religious, political or other aspects of life. However, truth as conscience may be about following certain moral codes, such as what was oneself spoken of as selling or losing one's own soul when people turn aside from their innermost values to gain popularity or worldly success.

It is true that social and material circumstances affect what potential there is. Also, it may vary at different stages of life. In particular, there may be more options early on and they may narrow down once a particular pathway has been chosen, or open up wider for those who have achieved, especially in careers. However, it is not just about work but the whole range of options.

As far as others' opinions, it may vary how much one can step outside of social expectations. However, part of who one is may be about choices of moving outside specific circles, including family or communities, such as those of a church. Often, to break with certain social ties can involve courage as most people rely on a certain amount of social support.

It is difficult to know to what extent the ego is or isn't involved in finding oneself. It may depend on the criteria used, and values of what matters or is is meaningful. Some may judge themselves on social roles, successes and outward achievements. Others, on the basis of inner qualities and it may be a mixture of all these in many instances. Conscience may be one aspect and others' opinions, although some may be less influenced by others' perceptions.

I wonder about karma a fair amount because I often feel that I get some forms of instant karma. Of course, I realise that I may be overinterpreting. However, one aspect which may be possible is that the unconscious aspect of oneself gives us the lessons which are needed. In this way, the law of karma is the law of cause and effect but involving the deeper aspects of mind rather than simply being about cause and effect on a physical basis. Also, it doesn't have to be about punishment although it is possible that some underlying sense of guilt may have a kind of atoning aspect.

The other aspects is whether or not the idea of karma is dependent on rebirth. If there is some kind of chain of births it may be that the present lifeforms are influenced in some way by the present ones, rather than literal reincarnation. That would be like the influence of the ancestors on the people being born, perhaps, in a basic way, like DNA, The body returns to dust and everything is recycled in new forms.

Have you read 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Bucke
I would recommend it, and it looks at lives of those who achieved exceptional consciousness, including Blake, the Buddha, and many famous figures. I know that Wayfarer has read it because he wrote about it, so it is a shame that he has left the forum.

One other book which I have found very good is Colin Wilson's final book, 'Superconsciousness'. He focuses on peak experiences and, in his writings in general, he speaks about creative people who saw the world differently, including some of the Existentialists and artists. He often sees consciousness as a form of waking up from a robotic state, following the thinking of Guirdieff.

That is interesting. I have never read any writing by Liebniz. The concept 'of the fundamental reality underlying our own existence' is interesting because it is open to dispute, especially whether it is physical or non physical, or a complex category of another kind.

One book which is Huston Smith's, 'The Forgotten Truth, which is about comparative religion. However, it gets into metaphysics about the nature of dimensions beyond space and time, as well as 'levels'. Any understanding of levels which is hierarchical or beyond the nature of the seen is open to dispute. However, it may also be said that the perspective of realism may be too flat, because perception is so bound up with awareness, almost breaking down or calling into question the separation of subject and objects of perception.

I remember several months ago we were discussing Aldous Huxley, and his book, 'The Perennial Wisdom'. He is an interesting example of someone who paid attention to the mystics' approach. Also, in the post I have just written above I spoke of the 'hidden' as possibly being unhelpful but his writing in 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' points to the dimensions of perception under the influence of Mescalin which is like seeing alternative dimensions or parallel universes.

I definitely recall your thread on mysticism and how you have more of a 'meat and potatoes' approach and question tbe idea of the 'hidden'. I am not sure that there is a literal hidden reality of the mystics but feel that perception varies, with some people being more attuned to the mundane and others to more alternative ways of seeing. However, I would not elevate the mystical ones, because that would be putting the mystics as having superior insight, which may be an extreme generalisation and a far too black and white value judgement.

I have read a little of Spinoza and probably should read more. I do have a copy of Buber' s 'I and Thou' on my shelf. One thing which I do find interesting is how all these philosophers explore these ideas. It may be that in the present time science seems to be considered as the most ultimate authority of ideas. Of course, it gives incredible knowledge but it is questionable as to how much insight it has, and many do have some, but certain aspects may be discussed in meaningful ways in philosophy, as in metaphysics.

I have moved on to lemon squash now. No more alcohol for me, especially in the hot weather. If I drink too much I often get lost going home or in great big metaphysical knots and in need of philosophical resuscitation, on this site or going through my cluttered piles of books. Enjoy your drink!

William Blake made important contributions to the understanding of pleasure, challenging puritanical aspects of Judaeo- Christian thought, especially within the thought of Jonh Milton, which was far more puritanical and mainstream. He and Whitman were radical in their perception of puritanical doctrines. Also, Yeats went back to the mythical aspects of the Celtic tradition. While the mystics may appear traditional in their views, looked at from the perspective of twentieth first century thinking, in their own historical and cultural contexts they were fairly radical and subversive.

I am not sure that the idea of the ineffable is particularly helpful, but that may be an overgeneralised simplification of mysticism. Figures like William Blake, Walt Whitman and WB Yeats may stand out as making major contributions to human thought. Within philosophy, mysticism may be dismissed but simply replaced by blandness, which may say little of any meaningful consequence. Of course, the mystics have their weaknesses, just like everyone else. It is all about dialogue and the widest expanses of thought arising in the human imagination, in mythic and rational explanations.

I am a bit of a caffeine fan, not much of a sugar freak though, although I am having a glass of red wine as I speak. It may not be relevant to the discussion, except in terms of states of consciousness, and, perhaps, in making thinking about philosophy more intense and enjoyable.

Mysticism may have an important link with aesthetics. I have been reading about the idea of the sublime, going back to the ideas of Kant on imagination, in 'Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche, by Andrew Bowie, (2003). In the history of philosophy mysticism may be traced back to philosophers who saw the transcendent in terms of the idea of God.

However, states of consciousness may be also compatible with the sublime, as being those of deep intersubjectivity, such as in core understanding of ethics, intelligence and wisdom which can be applied in human affairs in life. The parallel between the good in the form of its connection with the 'good' may be important. However, that is not to say that there are no conflicts and exceptions to the rule, because truth and fairness may sometimes be ugly, or uncanny aspects of life, ugly rather than beauty. There may be inversions of aesthetics and conventions of wisdom, which may involve startling aspects of intuition and imagination, going beyond traditional boundaries and ways of perception.

I am not sure that what I am saying is part of your philosophy. However, many Christian believers may see Jesus as the son as God; as having the share with God, the Father, in the source of omniscient knowledge. This may miss the way in which everyone is a Son ot God. Carl Jung spoke of the image of God evolving through human consciousness and understanding, which may involve human beings as consciousness, perhaps in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of human consciousness and will, as an interpretation of Kant's 'thing in itself', as the transcendent, which may be what is deemed as the absolute source, as God.