Does a "True Self" Exist?

[popsthebuilder]

A true self is the one that gets second guessed all the time by th e other self. There are definitely two or three sides to everyone. A straight forward rightious,
A manipulative selfish,
And an observer that only contemplates. That's how it is for me anyway. I like to consider the one that is noble, and selfless as my true self, but really it is just a majority, and only that by sheer will and guidance from recognition that there are three. Probably makes no sense but I'm ducking nuts remember.

[Excited Penguin]

I think there is no 'true self', and I don't see how there could be, really. We end up running into the same old problem here, namely the contention that humans possess free will. Surely, a being that possess such a quality-free will- would have a true self as well? But given how free will is merely an illusion I will go ahead and declare this 'true self' idea false as well.
Why doesn't a rock, a planet, or even a galaxy possess true self or free will as well? Why are only intelligent animals(e.g. humans) supposed to possess those things? Just because we express this 'knowledge' we have, in a different way than other 'entities' might? Aren't we running in a kind of bias here? To provide you with an example, how could we tell if a mentally handicaped person, who can't use language to express himself, has true self and free will? We couldn't, could we? These are, after all, simply things men believe of themselves, not demonstrable phenomena. So we run into a bit of difficulty here. Is it that we include in our criteria of things possesing 'free will' and having 'true selves' only such objects as can comprehensibly transmit this 'knowledge' they possess about their own nature? Wouldn't a moving galaxy 'know' that it's moving through space-time and 'knowingly' affecting the stars within it, just as a man might decide to move with his family in the suburbs and taking his family with him, just by doing so? Or does the galaxy need to be able to 'express' somehow this particular 'knowledge' it has of itself for it to qualify? Didn't it already do that though, through it's own human endeavour of creating and developing science and mathematics?

It is simply a failure of how we use language, I believe, that we are misled into thinking we can not only imagine but also comprehend such illogical concepts as 'true self', 'free will' or 'God'.

[JuliaL]

How can I be anything but my true self?
I am only me.
It may be the case that I can be split into internal factions.  Perhaps one identifiable part feels attraction while another feels revulsion.  Both are components of the construction that is 'me.'  Internal conflicts get resolved, or don't.  They still are lumped to make up 'me.'
Any external perspective on this depends on the observer, whether they are a lumper or a splitter.
My past is only memory, my future is only a prediction.  At the moment, I am 'me' and can be no other.  Hence I am the true me, my true self.
Over time, I may find I have changed and compare what I was to what I am.  But at any given time, I am me and can be no other.

[Cato]

A true self is the one that gets second guessed all the time by th e other self.  There are definitely two or three sides to everyone. A straight forward rightious,
A manipulative selfish,
And an observer that only contemplates. That's how it is for me anyway. I like to consider the one that is noble, and selfless as my true self, but really it is just a majority, and only that by sheer will and guidance from recognition that there are three. Probably makes no sense but I'm ducking nuts remember.

This is perhaps your most sane contribution on these forums. Two or three 'sides' to everyone? Shit, whatever number you settle on I'll hang an exponent on it. 

The problem I have with the way you describe it is the notion that this number equates to multiple 'selves'. Instead of wrestling and reconciling with the complexity of being a human, you have turned it into a cage match between different 'selves'. I would love to continue the conversation thinking that by 'the other self' you are being metaphorical, but your previous posts suggest you take this literally because of the idea of the Christian trinity.

[popsthebuilder]

A true self is the one that gets second guessed all the time by th e other self.  There are definitely two or three sides to everyone. A straight forward rightious,
A manipulative selfish,
And an observer that only contemplates. That's how it is for me anyway. I like to consider the one that is noble, and selfless as my true self, but really it is just a majority, and only that by sheer will and guidance from recognition that there are three. Probably makes no sense but I'm ducking nuts remember.

This is perhaps your most sane contribution on these forums. Two or three 'sides' to everyone? Shit, whatever number you settle on I'll hang an exponent on it. 

The problem I have with the way you describe it is the notion that this number equates to multiple 'selves'. Instead of wrestling and reconciling with the complexity of being a human, you have turned it into a cage match between different 'selves'. I would love to continue the conversation thinking that by 'the other self' you are being metaphorical, but your previous posts suggest you take this literally because of the idea of the Christian trinity.

Not the Christian trinity. That is the whole problem with christians, not Christianity.

There is a righteous. It is most powerful in a completely straight forward and obvious way. This is seen throughout the Universe as all creation. It is reflected internally as well.
In all forms it is obvious, decisive, instinctual, and pure.

The nameless side, as I consider it for many reasons is strictly in us. And other animals in much smaller doses. It cannot be observed throughout creation, in this reality. It is contorted, driven, malicious, hasty after thought, hidden, self justifying, blinding, insidious and has the potential to be all ruining and damming.

The third element is potential/ chaos and balance. It can be observed throughout the Universe as the forces that bind everything together, and have limitless potential. Endless energy. This can be observed in us as potential too. It is when one has knowledge for good or bad yet doesn't act on this knowledge due to detachment from oneself, also called indifference. This too can be observed as endless potential in that if all individuals were United as one with each other and the Universe the possibilities are endless either for righteousness or the force that pulls opposite at every interval and in between.

---

Really not trying to sound all preachy but rocks, plants, lower animal life, galaxies, they don't get free will. That was for however very few types of beings that have dominated and conquered there immediate environment. It is opportunity for greatness. We are the puzzle peice to existence. If only we could form ourselves to fit.

---

How can I be anything but my true self?
I am only me.
It may be the case that I can be split into internal factions.  Perhaps one identifiable part feels attraction while another feels revulsion.  Both are components of the construction that is 'me.'  Internal conflicts get resolved, or don't.  They still are lumped to make up 'me.'
Any external perspective on this depends on the observer, whether they are a lumper or a splitter.
My past is only memory, my future is only a prediction.  At the moment, I am 'me' and can be no other.  Hence I am the true me, my true self.
Over time, I may find I have changed and compare what I was to what I am.  But at any given time, I am me and can be no other.

Being a true you would entail doing every possible thing at every possible time in a manner that is true to your good side.

Horribly difficult, yet grandly rewarding.

No I have not achieved this. I am more devoted every day though.

[robvalue]

I think the nearest I can get to describing the "true self" would be with the cloning thought experiment. It would require alternate realities where at some point a decision is made which sets me on different paths in different realities. By the "multiverse" idea that all possibilities are played out somehow in other realities, it would just be a matter of following "my path" from the point of my birth in all the different branches. (Obviously this would be a ludicrous amount of data!)

What, if anything, would we see as common traits regarding "me"? Is there anything that survives all these different branches and scenarios?

I conclude that the DNA would be the only thing in common between them all. I feel confident that any other attribute would not consistently survive "multiversing", at either a zoomed in or zoomed out level.

[Cato]

The third element is potential/ chaos and balance. It can be observed throughout the Universe as the forces that bind everything together, and have limitless potential. Endless energy. This can be observed in us as potential too.  It is when one has knowledge for good or bad yet doesn't act on this knowledge due to detachment from oneself, also called indifference. This too can be observed as endless potential in that if all individuals were United as one with each other and the Universe the possibilities are endless either for righteousness or the force that pulls opposite at every interval and in between.

It took me a moment, but I figured it out. You're the love child of Zig Ziglar and Deepak Chopra. The reason I didn't get it immediately is because you didn't use the words 'frequency' or 'vibration'. I know what to look for now.

[popsthebuilder]

The third element is potential/ chaos and balance. It can be observed throughout the Universe as the forces that bind everything together, and have limitless potential. Endless energy. This can be observed in us as potential too.  It is when one has knowledge for good or bad yet doesn't act on this knowledge due to detachment from oneself, also called indifference. This too can be observed as endless potential in that if all individuals were United as one with each other and the Universe the possibilities are endless either for righteousness or the force that pulls opposite at every interval and in between.

It took me a moment, but I figured it out. You're the love child of Zig Ziglar and Deepak Chopra. The reason I didn't get it immediately is because you didn't use the words 'frequency' or 'vibration'. I know what to look for now.

I have no clue who you are referring to.

[bennyboy]

It took me a moment, but I figured it out. You're the love child of Zig Ziglar and Deepak Chopra. The reason I didn't get it immediately is because you didn't use the words 'frequency' or 'vibration'. I know what to look for now.

Haha I made that call already, but pops claims ignorance on all that stuff.

[popsthebuilder]

It took me a moment, but I figured it out. You're the love child of Zig Ziglar and Deepak Chopra. The reason I didn't get it immediately is because you didn't use the words 'frequency' or 'vibration'. I know what to look for now.

Haha I made that call already, but pops claims ignorance on all that stuff.

For you to speak low of my parents, of whom you know mere inclination is disrespectful to them. I really don't appreciate it. Smear me, leave my blood the fuck out of it...please.