The True Self

[notself]

Thanks Tank!

Is the true self capable of change?

I would say, "not by volition."

Could you explain?  Can you not change to become more compassionate?  Can you not change to become more cynical? Can you not form habits so ingrained that you know longer thing about them?  Can you not overcome suspicion or aversion?  Of course the answer to all of these questions is yes.  Where then is the unchanging (true) self?

[Sophus]

Thanks Tank!

Is the true self capable of change?

I would say, "not by volition."

Could you explain?  Can you not change to become more compassionate?  Can you not change to become more cynical? Can you not form habits so ingrained that you know longer thing about them?  Can you not overcome suspicion or aversion?  Of course the answer to all of these questions is yes.  Where then is the unchanging (true) self?

People change all the time. I'm only skeptical that anyone changes at their core being by an act of will alone. For example, in order to truly become more compassionate I would have to do more than commit to an action that usually denotes compassion. If I force myself to give X amount to a charity but only truly do so out of vanity, for the appearance of being compassionate, I haven't done anything to change myself. Before there can be a will for me to authentically change myself the will itself must change. And no man can will his will.

[notself]

People change all the time. I'm only skeptical that anyone changes at their core being by an act of will alone. For example, in order to truly become more compassionate I would have to do more than commit to an action that usually denotes compassion. If I force myself to give X amount to a charity but only truly do so out of vanity, for the appearance of being compassionate, I haven't done anything to change myself. Before there can be a will for me to authentically change myself the will itself must change. And no man can will his will.

One changes through repetition and focused intent.  Your comment about doing something through vanity is well put.  In your example the person giving through vanity does not become immediately more generous.  This person is mainly reinforcing the mental habit of vanity.  Intention, analysis, and repetition are what brings about change.

[Tank]

If there is such a thing as true self and if it is mutable it would appear that one tool that could change the true self is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy often referred to as CBT. The link deals with younger people but gives a good insight into the ideas and application of CBT.



NOTE: Do not 'CBT' as it also an acronym for Cock and Ball Torture, an extreme niche of the Bondage scene, and while that may also change the true self it is not a method I would recommend!

[notself]

While meditation is not precisely defined as CBT, it is being studied for similar effects.  This is a good article about mindfulness and the brain.

"Putting Feelings Into Words Produces Therapeutic Effects in the Brain; UCLA Neuroimaging Study Supports Ancient Buddhist Teachings"
Another study, with the same participants and three of the same members of the research team, combines modern neuroscience with ancient Buddhist teachings to provide the first neural evidence for why "mindfulness" â€" the ability to live in the present moment, without distraction â€" seems to produce a variety of health benefits.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Pu ... -8047.aspx

There is nothing new under the sun, just better tools to determine why something works.

Evidently, meditation also can build a bigger brain.  http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ho ... 91273.aspx

[Sophus]

NOTE: Do not roflol Thanks for the heads up. Seriously.

This is a good article about mindfulness and the brain.

This is a part of the Buddhist philosophy I adore - also relates to what I meant by "sleepwalking through life". Yet sometimes mindfulness proves more difficult than others. Any tips for staying in it?

That article reminds me of a song: "If you can't compose yourself it's best to compose a poem..."

[The Magic Pudding]

NOTE: Do not 'CBT' as it also an acronym for Cock and Ball Torture, an extreme niche of the Bondage scene, and while that may also change the true self it is not a method I would recommend!

You said don't so I had to.
No strange stuff on the first two pages of search results.
Maybe you got some personalized google serving.

[Tank]

NOTE: Do not :secret:

[Jac3510]

I've been asking myself this more and more: what does it mean to be your "true self"?

You hear it a lot that people never (or rarely) show "who they really are" in public. Then you have Nolan's Joker's view on it, "in... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did." I do think a lot of people are, for lack of a better term, sleep walking through their life. Maybe when you're thrust into a sudden scary situation where your life is looking as though it's going to end, one starts to wake up (not to sound like the Jigsaw Killer or anything ) because you start to appreciate the full, mortal value of your life; how it's too short to not be who you are.

It also seems a hermit who lives only in nature is completely free to be him or herself. We may be the only animals with this sort of identity problem because we are the only animals with opinions.

That question is extremely difficult to answer for no other reason than any answer given includes many, many assumptions upon which there is absolutely no consensus in the philosophical community. In other words, the way you approach and view the world will have a huge impact on how you answer this.

First, the question assumes that there is such a thing as a "self" and that it is a proper object of predication. Both of those have been disputed for centuries, but especially since the Enlightenment. Second, it is fundamentally a question of the mind-body problem, a phrase which itself means different things to different schools of thought. To the analytical philosopher it means one thing, to the classical another. Closely related to this is your definition of "person," which itself cannot be answered until you decide if you are a monist (and if so, what kind) or a dualist (and if so, what kind). Finally, to begin answering any of those questions, you need to come up with a basic philosophical method.

I don't say all that to dismiss your question. It is an important one. It just seems to me that it would be next to impossible to explore it without getting into, or at least agreeing on, these issues.

With all that said, if I were to try to answer your question from your point of view, I would first assume you are a monist and a physicalist (meaning there is only one kind of substance that makes up everything, and everything that is made up of that substance--that is, everything that exists--can be defined by physical laws). You, then, would have to argue that the mind is not a separate thing from the body. How you would define its relationship, though, is up in the air. Let's just ignore the mind-body problem on the basis that science isn't advanced enough yet to explain how it works. With all that, you can at least agree with Hume who thought that the mind was nothing more than the collection of sense perceptions. Whatever else that means is beside the point.

It probably isn't right, in that scheme, to talk about a "self" in any real sense of the word. "You" aren't really a unified anything. You are a collection of properties. To ask about the self would be similar to touring a college campus, looking at all the buildings, etc., and at the end, say, "The campus and buildings are beautiful. Could you show me the college now, please?" It would be what is called a modal error, if you want to be technical about it.

So if there is no such thing as the self, there is obviously no such thing as a "true" or "false" self. "You" are what "you" are at any given moment. You are this configuration or that configuration. Now, some in your camp would object here, because I'm leaning very much towards brain-state identity theory. There are other views. It's just that if I were a physicalist, I don't know how I could adopt them.

One final note: if we reject the idea that the mind is a distinct substance from the body, then "you" are not a thing that believes anything. Even if we get away from identity theory, it is still hard to see how you aren't at least a collection of your beliefs. In that case, we still can't have a "true" self. We can have a collection of beliefs that you don't show others, but even that behavior is tied to those same beliefs (it may be my belief that I cannot allow others to see this aspect of my belief). Every "self" you let people see would be "true" because every "self" shown would be determined by the same beliefs.

Bottom line: what's the true self? It seems to me, on physical monism, it either doesn't exist or else every "self" is true in that there is really no distinction between them.

Thoughts?

[Kylyssa]

I wrote this a while back when I was married to a man who didn't know who I was and didn't care to find out.  

A Stranger to You

A mask of anonymity
covers my true face.
Maybe we passed in the grocery store,
in an elevator,
or on your pillow when you woke.
You instantly dismissed
my dumpy hausfrau exterior.
I gave you
a kindergarten teacher's smile
that you forgot
before you even looked away.
I am full of unexpected things
that you will never know.
I am not the mask I wear.
The smile is only painted on.



I think when people talk about faces, masks and true selves they are talking about whether a person is just behaving naturally or consciously constructing a persona.  I think we are the sum of our parts but that we can consciously (or subconsciously, perhaps?) misrepresent the sum of our parts at times or even most of the time.

[notself]

Kylyssa,

What a moving poem.  Thank you for posting it.