Jennifer started this discussion 2 months ago#1,589
This has probably been asked a million times but I don't care. I'll ask a million and one. How do you distinguish between the ego, personality, and true self? Is it only in the motivation for action that a person can distinguish them? I know there has to be more to it because what motivation does the personality have?
+ Tom (Anon C) — 2 months ago, 29 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#32,029
There are several ways I might try to answer this question. One would be to smugly copy and paste definitions from an online dictionary. Seeing as the ability to distinguish between the meanings inferred by these words depends hugely upon how one defines them in the first place, and that different people understand and use these words differently, I could say that this is the only fair way to answer this question: by providing the consensus-based definition that a dictionary supposedly gives. And having plucked these definitions from said online dictionary, semantics and pragmatics will ensure that this discussion doesn't get much further without a jolly good argument regarding the million different contexts in which these words could be used. I suspect that you'd still be hoping for more.
My take is as follows: Personality is just another trading-name for ego, which in turn is an invented concept. My cat has a wonderful personality, but I'm not sure whether he's much of an egotist. My boss has a massive ego, but very little personality. Am I talking bollocks now? Certainly. The words kind of start to dissolve when you really examine what they actually mean. They just mean what *you* mean, and any dialogue we might have using these words is predicated on the supposition that we both mean the same thing about them. We probably don't.
What motivates me to do a certain thing? I don't know. Whether we are agents of free will or simply imagine we make decisions is highly debatable and the subject of much philosophical discussion. Dr Robert mentioned in a previous thread that certain recent studies are showing that often, our brains will start to take action before we imagine we have begun deciding to do it. Motivation might just but another sub-plot of the ego's narrative.
I think when you really look closely at this stuff and try and find some certainty, you're left with something rather insubstantial which leaves you hoping for more. Like popcorn.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,030
hmmm...
I understand what you're saying. I do have a reason for asking this. It's not just random questioning.
I'm looking at it from a spiritual perspective or a personal perspective. How would you know which one a specific thought, emotion, whatever originated from?
Doesn't personality have more to do with likes and dislikes, natural talents, natural disposition, how the body interacts with the world using the five senses? I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at which is why I asked. There has to be a good definition that distinguishes them from each other on a personal level.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,032
Also, wouldn't the personality be flexible and adaptable while the ego and true self are not? There would always be a winner and a loser? How does personality fit into this? Do you see what I'm asking? I'm not looking for the definition exactly but I way to distinguish them.
Hexi★ (Anon B) — 2 months ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,035
The things you listed are biology, and completely separate from what you're asking. You are basically trying to attribute machinery to the operator and the passenger.
Let's try one of my shitty analogues for a change, I'm sure you've missed them jenni!
Ok, your ego is the government of a nation, right? The culture and it's people are the personality, right? The magical "true self" is nothing more than a big eye in the sky that simply sees what's happening and tries, with all it's might, to control the nation. The eye, the true self, has the real powe but lacks the appendages to use it so the government, the ego, convinces the eye in the sky that it's in control, even though it isn't, for the sole reason of fulfilling it's purpose, to protect the nation because nothing can exist without it yet everything exists despite it.
+ shh (Anon D) — 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,039
Hi Jen
I would say that personality is a combination of nature and nurture therefore it is made up partly of id and partly of ego (the id being the instinctive behaviours you are born with, the ego being the values you give to things and the how you conduct yourself), I would even go as far as to say that the super-ego, which is the rules and morals that you impose upon yourself, contributes to personality.
ego, is the sujective value that you attach to elements in your life
and "true self" is obviously your id, combined with the bits of ego and superego, that you believe in and feel to be right (as opposed to rules that you live by that were imposed by someone else - parents/religion/society etc, that you do not necessarily really believe are true or "right" or want to abide by)
Hexi★ (Anon B) — 2 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,043
@32,041
Try this: Whenever you get offended or upset about something, take a step back and REALLY examine if your reaction is warranted or proportional or not. If NOT then that's your ego fucking with you. If it's still a "yes, that was shitty" then it's just your personality- personal preference. However, personal preference is only your truth and not necessarily anyone elses. If that notion makes you angry, that's again your ego. (I sincerely hope you understood the meaning of the last sentence, it's an important distinction to make.)
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,044
Hexi, that's more along the lines of what I'm looking for but it seems, at least from my point of view, to be more in depth or to be more difficult. For instance how do you know when an action is an overreaction and not warranted, using your example? That could just be because I'm mental though. And everything can be justified. Also, the true self, are there any emotions or anything that can be attributed to that?
shh (Anon D) — 2 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#32,045
"gut feeling" Jen, is the only answer I have for you
I suppose believing and trusting in yourself that your gut instinct is right, there is a certain resonance that comes with things that are your true self, you just kinda know
Tom (Anon C) — 2 months ago, 9 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,076
Two children are arguing on the bus. "Don't be ridiculous", says one. "Unicorns have only one horn. That's why they're called unicorns!". "Fair enough," says the other. "A unicorn has one horn, everyone knows that. But the way to tell a unicorn from a pegasus, is that a pegasus has wings and can fly, and a unicorn doesn't and therefore can't fly" And so on, and so forth.
It's an amusing diversion, for sure, to discuss the properties, merits, and limitations of these wonderful creatures, and we can distinguish them apart easily: Everyone knows a unicorn only has one horn. However, the elephant in the room (ok this is kind of a safari of bullshit now, but bear with me) is as follows: They're both mythological creatures in the first place. They only exist in our minds! Sure, unicorns originate from the forest, as opposed to the origin of cave-dwelling pegasi. Fun times! But really, take a step back and confront the more pertinent issue regarding their true nature: they are figments of imagination.
I know we need words like "ego" and "personality" to get by, I use them my self, discriminately. But I wouldn't play the game of pinning down their nature, origin, and culpability for my true-self's agency in reality. It's just a rabbit hole to disappear down, and the worst thing is, there aren't even any fun-loving rabbits at the bottom.
I'm interested in the idea of a true self. These thoughts that arise in me are happening somewhere, right? They require some kind of auditorium. But the self isn't the the thoughts, it's where they happen.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,079
Why do you keep insisting that there is nothing to talk about here? I already said I was asking for a reason. The reason was not so I could be told they are just meaningless words. It's great that you believe they can't be used but I would like some clarity. And if there is no way to be clear on these subjects then maybe people should stop teaching about them. There are to many reference to false self, ego, personality, and so on in different things that someone has to have some kind of understanding about the subject. Maybe I'm just asking the wrong people.
Hexi★ (Anon B) — 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,082
Or maybe, you should stop asking people to define something without form, colour or substance? What makes you think anyone else would know any better than you do? We don't even know what consciousness is, let alone how it functions or what parts are or aren't included. All anyone *can* do is try to put their best guess into words. The problem with words is that they are used to define things, how do you define an infinite soup? By saying it's infinite but what does that tell you, really? Not a thing. :)
If you meet someone who claims to fully understand consciousness, you've met a liar.
EDIT: If I was asked for the simplest way to define consciousness, I would say it's an infinite canvas within a finite space.
+ dr-robert (Anon E) — 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,098
Well said, Hexi.
Words and the logic behind words go only so far. The situation here is that words themselves arise and are known WITHIN consciousness, or BY consciousness, so how could any words describe or characterize consciousness?
To say this another way, when the words stop (inner silence), and all the questions that have been put into words are seen to be questions in vain, then consciousness becomes apparent in and of itself. That which becomes apparent cannot be named, and it cannot be understood intellectually, but it IS there, and apparent. This is what I call awareness or presence.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,103
I never asked anyone to define them and I never asked about consciousness. I asked about things that have been written about millions of times before. Maybe my vocabulary is a little to limited to convey my question but it is answerable.
> All anyone *can* do is try to put their best guess into words.
That's all I'm asking for, an actual attempt.
> To say this another way, when the words stop (inner silence), and all the questions that have been put into words are seen to be questions in vain, then consciousness becomes apparent in and of itself. That which becomes apparent cannot be named, and it cannot be understood intellectually, but it IS there, and apparent. This is what I call awareness or presence.
I don't know if this was an attempt to answer my question but it answers part of it. Basically through silence you can distinguish the true self.
I guess the opposite of silence is ego or false self? Still don't know about personality.
dr-robert (Anon E) — 2 months ago, 25 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,106
Yes, it fits part of it. What we are calling "true self"—and those are just words for something which cannot be understood verbally—is what I also call awareness or presence.
Personality is the habitual functioning of mind which develops when initial genetics are acted upon by upbringing and experience.
Ego is an habitual disturbance or distortion within the field of awareness, like the ripples in a pond when a stone (the disturbance) is thrown into it, or the way a whirlpool forms as a distortion of the flow of a river when that flow is distorted by a rock. Ego is a story you tell yourself and others. It may seem "real," but it is not real because the history upon which it is based is only a version of events, and not an accurate one.
True self sees both ego and personality nonjudgmentally, in the same way it sees everything else in the world. Ego—which is part of personality—defends and justifies personality (that is its function), and enables it to act in the ordinary world in ordinary ways.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 14 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#32,120
That's sweet of you to say but I do find that I am misunderstood a lot. For whatever reason I can't find the words to be as precise as I need to be. Maybe I have to much of an emotional or intuitive way of saying things. I don't know.
You are most welcome, Jennifer. And I don't think you did too badly really. You did end up with at least part of what you were asking for. That's already pretty good. Anyway, it all comes down to you, what YOU understand, and what you make of what you understand, doesn't it?
+ Helen (Anon G) — 2 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,151
I don't think it's possible to convey EXACTLY what we mean, because we all interpret the world according to our selves - our experiences, beliefs, and thoughts etc. My perspective is never going to be the same as yours, my words will never be the same as yours, my meaning can never be the same as yours.
How do I know that what I perceive as "green" is the same as what you perceive? Sure, it will be broadly similar, same effect of light refraction / reflection upon the eye but... well, my eyes are different to yours and my interpretation of the world is different to yours so, maybe we both see the same grass and think they are different colours. We will never know!
This is one reason why two people can be subject to the same experience and respond in very different ways.
Which brings me back to the original question:
My True Self is that which notices / is aware of the experience.
My personality is how I interpret and respond to that experience - based on my past experiences, my self-beliefs, my beliefs about the world (and by world I mean everything that is not "me"); and processed by *my* language.
My ego is what keeps hold of that interpretation and response, keeps playing it over and over, telling myself that it was this or it was that and using that to inform my personality, tell my personality it is "good" or "bad" or "crazy". On a less broad level, telling myself I was "caring", or "threatened", or "funny" etc.
That's how I explain it, anyway. And of course, my explanation, par definition may mean something totally different - and even nonsensical - to you!
Helen (Anon G) — 2 months ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,159
Some things are common...
Yes, but not out perceptions. Think about what we have in common - not ways of thinking, or what we like, or where we've been, or what we've experienced. Those aren't things we have in common - those are things our personalities have in common, the things our egos are attracted to or remember or hang on to.
Underneath all that. Underneath who I think I am, how I define myself... Underneath all that, there is the awareness. The essence of being.
Something that all the external things touch, or arise in, or whatever - in a millisecond before our minds capture that experience and turn it into a perception.
And once we add our perception, we lose that commonality.
Imagine sitting outside, one spring evening. There's a light wind... we both notice it. As in, we are both aware of it, know it is there. But we don't comment on it, it doesn't really figure in our minds, we don't think about it or make it into anything.
Until - suddenly, you shiver. The wind has caused your body to react - and at that point, your mind kicks in and interprets that as "I am cold".
Whereas I am not cold... I still don't think about the wind, until you say "that wind's got a bit chilly".
Then my mind kicks in and notices the wind, notices how it feels, and interprets it and I say "you think so? I think it's quite pleasant".
So - what we have in common is the awareness.
What makes us different is our interpretation of what we are aware of.
Helen (Anon G) — 2 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,167
Ok - yes, all humans have three things in common. True Self, ego, and personality. Id and superego, unconscious, subconscious - all there as well, of course, as far as I believe - what we call them depends on preferred theory perhaps.
Helen (Anon G) — 2 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,168
But: everyone has a front door = front door is common to all people.
However - everyone's front door is different - mine is NOT the same as anyone else's. It may be the same style. It may be a similar colour. The same colour, from the same paint tin even.
But my front door is MINE - and that makes it different to anyone else's.
When you open it, is allows access to MY house, which is part of MY world, influenced by MY tastes, or MY partner's tastes, or even how much money I have.
Tom (Anon C) — 2 months ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,182
Plunged from birth into a world of such deep uncertainty, an overpopulated planet filled with religion, technology, art, history, literature, psychology, language... so much information being streamed in high definition to our brain and filling every waking hour. And when we close our eyes it's the same, this time we are a captive audience to another TV station, this one seemingly our own, and equally overwhelming.
We try to invent models which describe reality because we can't intellectually comprehend the infinite. There are models of psychology which might propose personality, ego and true self. There are models of physics which propose force, mass and acceleration. There used to be a model of geography that proposed that the earth was flat. We were not stupid or naive when this was the case. At the time it seemed, without the benefit of an imaging satellite hanging in the sky above our planet, offering a perspective freed from the gravity of human constraints, self-evident.
Models come and go. They are like a pair of sunglasses that we all agree to put on, and casually remove when the weather suits. But the models, as well as serving a useful purpose, inadvertently colour and distort that which they describe. Terms like personality, ego and true self are currently seen as de facto - they're just there, whether you like them to be or not. Can't you see them? And if you can't, what's wrong with you? They start to assume a power over us - if information which doesn't fit this three-tiered model of consciousness becomes apparent, the likelihood is that we will bend that information around the model, or bend the model around the information, for example creating further subcategories like superego, unconscious, subconscious, and so on.
It's similar to the way in which religious leaders try to cunningly modify and modernise their doctrine to keep up with whatever ideas are falling in and out of fashion. So we have concepts like 'intelligent design' creeping in to modern Christianity, trying to lend a flavour of scientific enquiry and rigour to a belief system which by its nature deters potential investors, sorry, followers, who might have a questioning, doubting mindset.
For me personally, this resonates strongly with some of imagery in the video Jennifer posted. Belief systems, when used for coercion and control, fill me with disgust, fear and contempt. It's like watching a bunch of chimps bullying the weaker pack animals, it makes me feel sad and powerless against the lunatic human need to believe in something, anything.
There is a very strong likelihood that our current models of consciousness, ego, motivation, agency, the mind, will seem antiquated and even ridiculous in 50 years. We'll look back and say, "well, we needed something to make us feel like we understood what the fuck was going on in our own minds, and that was the best we had". And another 50 years will see a similar pattern at work. I appreciate that at the present moment, people use these words, and this model and all the rest of it. We get set homework assignments and the like which demand that we answer to their their existence and describe their qualities.
My personal view is that any belief system or model of reality or consciousness, or whatever, must not require its users to believe anything in the first place, or it can not possibly be sustainable. And any belief system or model, lacking the humility in its authorship to acknowledge its own fallibility, ought to be rejected at the point of sale.
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,210
I take it that means you didn't like the video? I did. Sure, it was an appeal to emotion but it was all the right emotions. Made me wanna kick a politicians ass. :P
I guess the question for me is can we get peace through war?
Jennifer (OP) — 2 months ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#32,211
Tom, I really do understand what you're saying but there has to be some truth somewhere. If any model leads me to that then I would be a fool not to consider it.
Tom (Anon C) — 2 months ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#32,219
Not at all - the video was awesome, and artfully constructed. Do me a deal - if you find the truth, you must promise to send me a postcard with directions and a map!