Does the 'self' exist?

[Anonymous No.20559166]

I like Jung's idea of individuation as some sort of self-help goal to strive for, and to avoid sleepwalking through life, doing just what circumstances have convinced me I should do. But I am at the same time extremely skeptical of the existence of some true inner-self and truth that you can discover or create. It seems that anything that you once thought of as being authentic, could later be shown to be another mask, a compromise between individual or society, or an inner cope. The only proof I can adduce for the existence of the self is the uncomfortable feeling when you know you are not being "yourself", which could just be the feeling of incongruity between the different masks. Maybe the true self is actually disgusting and the masks are the only thing that matters.

Thoughts please.

[Anonymous No.20559180]

>>20559166
>the uncomfortable feeling when you know you are not being "yourself", which could just be the feeling of incongruity between the different masks.
That's a cope.

Your real problem with existence of the Self is that it means you have to spend effort to free and strengthen it.

[Anonymous No.20559191]

>>20559166
You have a self 24/7 365 brainlet - being lost in thought doesn't change shit. What do you think is happening when you dream???

[Anonymous No.20559212]

>>20559180
Yes, but how do I know that the self I'm freeing and strengthening isn't just another mask I'm creating, spending effort on that?

>>20559191
This is not what I'm getting at. let's say you act differently when speaking with you mother than with a friend, now which is the real "you", or are you faking something for both or are they both somehow authentic? When you decide to take up a profession, do "you" decide it or is it just a thought someone put in your head even though "you" would rather do something else?

[Anonymous No.20559229]

>>20559212
They're both part of you lol - you're capable of holding information in your brain without beleiving it right? Therefore you clearly able to spit it out when the right context arises

If you can think it, dream it, do it, it's a part of your self

[Anonymous No.20559254]

>>20559166
People get a bit confused with Jung's concept of individuation because it just sounds like a very direct concept. Its variability becomes more obvious when you see Jung's historical interpretation of the process in famous individuals.

You have to look inward. Your own conception of a 'true inner-self' is still outer, like a visual diagram.

[Anonymous No.20559327]

>>20559166
Been reading around Nietzsche and some Jung stuff these these past 3 years, learning stuff about psychology and psychoanalysis.

The closest I can go to a "self" is when I remember myself as a child, knowing nothing. I had like many an unhappy upbringing to say the least, so I had to dig and dig trying to salvage something. I wanted to die but I did all I could to not kill myself, thinking I would not miss. And now after years of unclogging my thoughts, I came to a point where I'd have (I think) no problem just lying there and starving to death, knowing I leave no unfinished business behind me.

When I'm alone in front of my habits, my insecurities, my weaknesses, the memory of my life, in the present, there's no more "self" or "other" - because I am. Meditation does this too.
It is my belief that what we refer as a god creates extremes, and that the conciousness grasps what is in between. When you are alone, free of the turmoil of the dark thoughts (often occurring because of the external perceptions), there are no more extremes, no absolutes, only one thing I believe, which is yourself ; free of the noise.

Now what I believe is that we know nothing. Born from nothing as far as I can remember, trusting what my elders told me, their culture, their society, their own word. And when I remember myself, 4 yo, waking up from a nap in summer, hearing my mother mowing the grass from a far, not knowing the difference between sadness and happiness yet but being in only a present, that's what I think is my "self".

When almost 30 years later I go outside, sit with my acquired knowledges, the extremes of the logical thoughts gathered from encounters, but decide to not use it and just observe the world in neither a passive or active manner, I believe I am my "self".
When I realise I went too far following somebody else ruining my good habits, I am my "self". When I was addicted to sugar, I'd go for massive binge of junk food. At first I thought it was me, but when I started to take care of me, and realised I had automatisms leading me to situations that would make me miserable despite my wish, I started to create the separation in my mind between a "self" and "not self". I hovered between these two in some sort of a 2D manner, going back and forth (not only for sugar but my upbringing and my actions too).
Now I think I came to a point where I managed to make my "self" as a center in a 3D space, a base where I can most of the time go, and somewhere I'd like to be defined as. Some kind of refuge, a sort of notion buddhism has.

So I don't know if it helps, but so far I believe that most of our perceptions are what they are, and all that matters is where we situate and define what is perceived. No matter the field, the theories, the words, the colors, the morals - it's like a giant sandbox where you're born and taught on how to use the tools (what we defined, us humans, as tools). Running out of characters. I'll try to make one more sentence.

[Anonymous No.20559342]

>>20559327
Understanding the mind or body as a collection of seperate faculties within direct and indirect control is one of the main tenets of roman stoicism AFAIR. Metaphorizing or using the imagination to make different kinds of phenomena tangible is helpful advice.

[Anonymous No.20559354]

>>20559327
To finish my stuff :
The "self" is being in the center of the paradoxical infinite system perceived. Jung was a Nietzsche reader, and the words of that last is that he wanted no followers. I don't know if I'm right, or wrong, but at the center of these absolutes, I quit my teachers and I'm trying to forge my own path, and will see where it goes, leaving others to see what I do, integrating it in their own experience of life.

Might be a cope, to which my death I hope will resolve the suffering. I just have to wait now, and I'll be ready if I have to leave early. I try to not spread misery in the meantime, and make this place more peaceful.

>>20559342
Lot of good shit in stoicism too yeah, glad their findings got to me recently.

[Anonymous No.20559371]

>>20559229
This would mean that there is no core self, and "you" are not anyone, just a bunch of masks. All the same don't you agree that there is a feeling of being you and pretending to be something else?

[Anonymous No.20559465]

>>20559212
>Yes, but how do I know that the self I'm freeing and strengthening isn't just another mask I'm creating, spending effort on that?
Figuring that out is the hard work you're trying to talk yourself out of bothering with.

[Anonymous No.20559527]

Is there a difference between soul and self?

[Anonymous No.20559542]

>>20559465
Suppose I am not talking myself out of it, just try to convince me the Self exists.

[Anonymous No.20559567]

>>20559527
I don't believe in immaterial souls, but if you count everything that goes on in your brain (consciousness, unconsciousness, memory, thoughts) as belonging to the soul, so would the hypothetical self belong to the soul, along with things that are not the self.

[Anonymous No.20559579]

>Does the 'self' exist?
The more you worry about a problem, the less you'll find an answer; Perhaps, a good night of sleep will help.

>>20559527
In Jungian analysis, yes. The self is the true personality of a person, whilst the anima is moreso the vitality of a person.

[Anonymous No.20559592]

>>20559254
Remember Jung says the final form of individuation occurs when there is no distinction between the inner and outer

[Anonymous No.20559602]

>>20559527
>>20559166
There's self as a "sense of self" and there's a self/soul as an existing entity an ontological thing that controls the body/survives death/reincarnates/etc.

The "sense of self" is a mirage like illusion which lead many people to believe there actually is an actual soul behind it, but there's not.

[Anonymous No.20559606]

>>20559579
>whilst the anima is moreso the vitality of a person.
What? I thought it was specifically the feminine part of the mind.

[Anonymous No.20559619]

>>20559606
It's also the source of creativity, purpose, and vitality for men.

[Anonymous No.20559625]

>>20559602
The sense of self is the idea borne from the innate grasping of the world. Its the way in which our language is formed and how we navigate around the world as with my sense of self at the center and everything else is a distance away from that sense of self. Of course behind that sense lies rationals like our bodies being the self or the mind or the consciousness or the memories or the feelings or the combinations. But those are not the ontological self/soul that you believe. The roles of those rationals are very limited and do not ever come close to leading someone to believe they have an ontological soul/self. Its just a half thought out rational thats hand waved away simply because it supports the sense of self. No one denies a sense of self, but the sense of self is not an ontological thing. Even when you combine all the rationals above, all you get at best is a rational that gets you a nominal self thats nowhere to an ontological self/soul.

[Anonymous No.20559637]

>>20559619
Where does he say this? Currently I'm only reading his last book Man and His Symbols.

I'm only about halfway through it so it hasn't really spoken about how to develop your anima further either. I hope to be able to get into some of his other works after this, but I'm not sure as they're apparently not nearly as accessible.

[Anonymous No.20559650]

>>20559637
Can't remember, it's been 7 years since I actually read him, lmao. But I think it was Aion.

[Anonymous No.20559653]

>>20559625
>>20559602
-t buddhist

[Anonymous No.20559674]

>>20559166
I think you are overthinking it and philosophizing it. Individuation is just being you. There does not have to be any deep mysterious insight gained. Like just be you. Go trough life and let your instincts and drives unfold. Old Marry had 4 kids, a husband and two dogs. She worked at the post office, in the afternoon she volunteered at the dog shelter walking the dogs. She also tended her garden and on the weekends she went to the book club and the choir. She died a happy lady that fulfilled and fully individualized. She had lived out the things in her and become who she could be.

[Anonymous No.20559703]

>>20559212
>This is not what I'm getting at. let's say you act differently when speaking with you mother than with a friend, now which is the real "you", or are you faking something for both or are they both somehow authentic?
They are both authentic because they are an expression of you and your being. Human beings adapt to their social circumstance and we play different roles. This is a key element of being properly socialized. You don't say the most wretched and vulgar jokes that you only make to your friends behind closed doors to your mom or to people in public institutions or in your everyday life. That does not mean you are being fake. If you where to look at it in terms of individualization, you could be someone that hung around with people that did not share your humor, or maybe you didn't have anyone to share it with, so you got no outlet for your humor or to express that part of your self. In that sense you would not be able to live that out and express that part of your individuality and thus you would not be able to self individuate.

A lot of people live trough life being scared of pursuing what they want to pursue, or maybe they never get the opportunity to. Maybe they wanted to write, or do a sport, or move somewhere, do something, but they never did in fear or what others would say, or they where just scared of doing it or whatever. Its in these cases when they can't act out that their wishes, drives, wants, potentials etc. And yes some people just have better start at life and there is an inequality in the sense that some people have the ability to go after what they want while others can't due to circumstances, resources and environment.

[Anonymous No.20559718]

>>20559212
>This is not what I'm getting at. let's say you act differently when speaking with you mother than with a friend, now which is the real "you", or are you faking something for both or are they both somehow authentic?
If you hung out with your friend but you always just went along with what they said, if you held your opinions, viewpoints, likes and so on back because you knew they would not be appreciated, and you faked having a bunch of view points and such just so you could fit in then that is when you would start being fake and not the real you.

[Anonymous No.20559777]

>>20559166
If the shadow exists, nobody would be able to objectively tell you what your shadow traits are. They could easily be projecting their own shadow onto you

[Anonymous No.20559829]

>>20559718
Yes it's easy to see this when talking about beliefs, but even so sometimes we don't really know what we believe and profess different beliefs in different company and maybe talking sincerely in both instances.

But here I was really talking about more subtle things like how you treat people, manners etc, way of speaking etc. For example, let's say you use swear word's with your friend but not with your mother. Now do you put on the mask for the friend or your mother? Maybe both, maybe everyone you meet? Now maybe you will say you avoid swearing with your mother and the swearing self is the real you, but maybe swearing is just a habit unconsciously picked up, possibly influenced by your friend group, so is it really "you"?