WoodlandAppleBRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
just to continue on the thoughts of self discovery:

Originally Posted By: SEYes, it is a semantic difference. As it happens, I tend to cast the problem merely in terms of skills learning, though some people seem to count this as "not being oneself". My point in previous posts were more to the effect of being owed an explanation of "self" that made "be yourself" mean anything.

And I'd put more stock in those who do these things for a living if any of the ones I've seen were even a little useful. But I wasn't talking as a clinician or to a clinician. All I can say is, as a clinician talking to someone whose education was in experimental psych and philosophy, the rhetoric of "self" (whatever that is) isn't going to be effective unless you can give me an account of what that means. Again, though, I don't really want your advice or help or whatever. Though I'll gladly discuss conceptual questions relating to what a self is supposed to be in this context.

EDIT: Sure, it can go in discussion if you want. Whatevs.

Well, as clinician to another, viewing yourself in terms of segmented skill sets is a little too reductionalist for me, but then again I do prefer the system thinking approach, I think it puts things into context and instead of segmenting, looks for patterns of relationships.

Or if that went way past peoples heads, here is a story of what I mean:

Once there was a man who wanted to understand an onion. what was it?What was it made of? he thought. He took off a layer to find out. Underneath, he found another layer, so he removed that too. And kept going. When Hed finished, he had no onion apart from the fragments on the table. He felt he still didnt understand the onion, and maybe he thought he might have learnt more by looking at it whole.

- AND THIS IS WHY WE CRY WHEN WE PEEL ONIONS!!!! smile

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.


Sister ElevenGOLD Member
owner of the group property
1,277 posts
Location: Seattle, WA, USA


Posted:
I should note that I am not a clinician. I deliberately avoided that entire area in favor of research methods and things like psycholinguistics and cognitive psych.

Now when I talk about a skill, or a complex of skills and capacities, my perspective is fairly transactionalist. One's capacities are spread across an organism and its environment (an example Shannon Sullivan uses is how paraplegia can be in many ways less debilitating with minor changes in how buildings are constructed). Problems, in general, are best understood in terms of capacities so understood. Point being, that when I talk about skill sets or capacities, I am not segmenting persons (in fact some would accuse me of making them too integral). But this doesn't mean divisions can't be made provisionally, or that everything is integrated to the same extent (all of one's organs are connected to other tissues, but we profit a lot by singling them out).

I suspect that "be oneself" is what J.L. Austin might call a "trouser phrase", in that its positive meaning is actually derivative of its negative meaning. So what does an account of not being oneself look like exactly?

p|.q|r:|::s|.s|s:|:.s|q.|:p|s.|.p|s


FugeeBRONZE Member
Cooler than bubblegum!
2,501 posts
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA


Posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...


WoodlandAppleBRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
SE, I think Im beginning to understand where you are coming from better but I tend to think that we are becoming too analytical and reductionalist in our thinking (we understand things by taking them apart) In such a highly complex and turbulent question there is a strong argument that says that analytic thinking is not enough, and by itself is probably increasing the problems encountered.
The western cultures have this way of thinking too embedded in its roots in my opinion, it puts too much of a focus on linear outlooks. And solutions tend to be simple and mechanical; I think it offers too much credit to cause-effect and problem-solution which leads to the search of singular solutions and problems and completely ignores the fact that complex things are not defined by what they are separately but how they interact. We miss out on how things connect.

In essence, I tend to think that answers to complex problems, like oneself are answered not by breaking down our personality, but by understanding the relationships between the divisions that you pointed out.
An old Sufi saying is that you think because you understand one you must understand two. Because one and one make two. But you must also understand and

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.


MidkiffBRONZE Member
shadow stranger
462 posts
Location: Carmi, Illinois, USA


Posted:
well this subject is very complex and makes me feel in ways i cant express in my vocabulary but there are somethings that you cant take apart and understand and to ask what "oneself" or "self" is, is also to ask what it is to be and i think it is beyond our comprehension at this moment to understand

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus


WoodlandAppleBRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
And yet we try to define it every day. Im not after the answers to lifes mysteries, just trying to seek out the answer to SE's original question, a definition of 'self'

We use these terms everyday, what is Character and how do I build it? What is trust? what do you mean when you say, just be yourself? whole sections of bookshops are dedicted to the notionof self help, my career is predicated on it

What is personal development? if we dont know what it is then how can we say its good? More results show that character building has more negative consequences than positive ones.

What I and SE is talking about is not the "answer" but more about defining the different ways in which we seek it.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.


WoodlandAppleBRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia


Posted:
I lol'ed at this definition of 'Be Yourself':

Whole persons are those who have exercised their relative autonomy to intergrate their intrapersonal life - so far as this is possible within a total web that is limited - and who are involved in a combined interpersonal, cultural (social-structural), ecological and transplanetary change programme of activities and commitments.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.


Sister ElevenGOLD Member
owner of the group property
1,277 posts
Location: Seattle, WA, USA


Posted:
Ah, I love it when crazy cults define things like "being yourself" or "liberation" in terms of their own BS ideologies. A salient example from when I was involved in the occult scene is Thelema (Aleister Crowley's goofy little religion) claims to liberate women, even though it says that their only real options are to be the housewives or lovers of real magicians (also that their struggle is not for enlightenment, but to control their moods; us crazy wimminz!)

I love less how often it works, because it sort of indicates how often people aren't really thinking about these things... SO TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD: Please feel free to disagree with me, but for the love of all that is good and decent, THINK about why you disagree with me!

Anyway, I'll get back to the main topic a little later. Gotta head to the jam now!

p|.q|r:|::s|.s|s:|:.s|q.|:p|s.|.p|s


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
I am you wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


PyrolificBRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia


Posted:
Is 'knowing yourself' something to do with the difference between internal expression of character eg; I might think paranoid thoughts all the time, but come across as a normal nice guy cuz I keep em in check - but I know I've got paranoid tendancies, vs external expression of character eg, everyone else thinks I'm paranoid because I wear a tin foil hat and wont talk on the phone because _they_ have bugged it - but perhaps inside I consider myself to be a totally normal nice guy (just getting picked on by the powers that be)?

which matters more?

I think then that 'being yourself' is the integration of internal and external models - ie consistently behaving in a way that matches the internal conception of self eg I'm an a$$hole and I drive real slow in the ultrafast lane?

J
EDITED_BY: Pyrolific (1284935570)

--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:
so on a more serious note: WA has put the onion analogy forth and I feel it's a quite appropriate one.

skipping now semantics on "who" am "I", briefly touching the fact that I can't answer the question for anyone else and - if at all - stating that this question can only be answered by ones self for ones self,

I can only offer a definition of "who I am", because I have asked the same question for quite some time, along with "what is life all about?".

Referring to my self as an "I" is merely putting something in one single letter, which would need a loooong definition and really take the fun out of talking to anyone else otherwise.

So "I" on the outside am this body, with physical attributes and clothing I choose to keep warm. On the inside this body acts as a container only. It houses the necessary mechanisms to sustain "my life" on "planet earth". This container also houses something called the "brain" in which "mind" is situated.

"I" am neither clothing, body, brain, nor mind. But all this is an expression of that, which "I" am.

"I" in this context could be referred to as "soul", "consciousness" or "the observer", as "that" - which remains, after all layers of the onion have been peeled... nothing laugh3 I admit that I use the previous terms as to my own liking, not necessarily the way they are used by others.

After all it very simple and yet it is a complex maze, inverting on itself. "I" am the dreamer - and the architect at the same time (Inception). "I" am Neo and yet "I" am the architect - if you may - "I" built the machines and programmed the agents (Matrix).

But after answering the question of "WHO am I" (just for myself), "I" find the even more powerful question is: "HOW am I? - and WHY am I how I am?"... like: "what is all this good for?" (in addition to: "what is the meaning of (my) life?")

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


FireTomStargazer
6,650 posts

Posted:


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink


HOP Newsletter
Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...