The inner-self.

M

moonman

Registered Senior Member
I think the inner-self that I am refering to can be described best by these words by Saint Augustine.

'The personhood of man, therefore, is an interinvolvement of rich inter-communication or dialogue. Man, though he feels lonely, is always in encounter with himself. The more he presses this dialogue of the self, the deeper he goes into the self itself. Sooner or later he encounters the Totally Other within the self. This is a radical departure from the sharp cleavage between the subjective and the objective world which one finds in classical idealism. There is an inner reality which is as surely objective as any outer reality'

And

'Don't go outside yourself, return into yourself. The dwelling place of truth is in the inner man. And if you discover your own nature as subject to change, then go beyond that nature. But, remember that, when you thus go beyond it, it is the reasoning soul which you go beyond. Press om, therefore, toward the source from which the light of reason itself is kindled.'

What do you think, do we have an inner-self or are we simply that which we appear.
 
I think we have two selves - an outer self and an inner self. The outer self shows
itself to the world (activities, behavior, achievements, etc). The inner self is inward
and private (dreams, feelings, memories, thoughts, etc).

I like this quote by C. G. Jung:

"True, whoever looks into the mirror of the water will see first of all his own face.
Whoever goes to himself risks a confrontation with himself. The mirror does not
flatter, it faithfully shows whatever looks into it; namely, the face we never show
to the world because we cover it with the persona, the mask of the actor. But the
mirror lies behind the mask and shows the true face."
 
Thought this might be of interest ...

The world of spirit in self-estrangement

THE sphere of spirit at this stage breaks up into two regions. The one is the actual world, that of self-estrangement, the other is that which spirit constructs for itself in the ether of pure consciousness raising itself above the first. This second world, being constructed in opposition and contrast to that estrangement, is just on that account not free from it; on the contrary, it is only the other form of that very estrangement, which consists precisely in having a conscious existence in two sorts of worlds, and embraces both. Hence it is not self-consciousness of Absolute Being in and for itself, not Religion, which is here dealt with: it is Belief, Faith, in so far as faith is a flight from the actual world, and thus is not a self-complete experience (an und für sich). Such flight from the realm of the present is, therefore, directly in its very nature a dual state of mind. Pure consciousness is the sphere into which spirit rises: but it is not only the element of faith, but of the notion as well. Consequently both appear on the scene together at the same time, and the former comes before us only in antithesis to the latter.

Source: Hegel - Phenomenology of Mind
 
There are 3 'you's

1. The person you think you are
2. The person others think you are
3. The person you actually are

The third will never be known by anyone and will remain quite lonely.
 
4. The person we will deliberately allow others to think we are.
Click to expand...

... which is another way of saying #2: people see what YOU want
them to perceive. Of course, some people realize it is a facade so
try not to over-do it.

;)
 
There are 3 'you's
Click to expand...
For me, it is always a battle to reconcile #1 with #3. #2 will always exist, I only have so much control on that. But one of my goals in life is to truly find #3. To find who you really are requires a cleansing of who you think you are. I doubt I will ever fully do this but I am trying.
 
From Cats:
The Naming Of Cats:

The naming of cats is a difficult matter
It isn't just one of your holiday games
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you a cat must have three different names

First of all, there's the name that the family use daily
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey
All of them sensible, everyday names

There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames
Such as Plato, Admetas, Electra, Demeter
But all of them sensible everyday names

But I tell you a cat needs a name that's particular
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?

Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo or Coricopat
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum
Names that never belong to more than one cat

But above and beyond there's still one name left over
And that is the name that you never will guess
The name that no human research can discover
But the cat himself knows, and will never confess

When you notice a cat in profound meditation
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought
Of the thought
Of the thought
Of his name

His ineffable effable effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular name
Click to expand...
 
I am guessing that the innerself would be the you you really are. What keeps you from being the real you?. Making a belive and expetaions about how you are, The you you think you are.
Could you not eliminate one of that self. Could you stop thinking you are somebody, stop making expectaions on who you are and just be.

To much Buddha at work:D
 
I doubt we will ever find #3, cause if we were to find #3 we'd THINK it was #3 and, by definition, it'd become #1. #3 is the force behind every decision you make and every opinion formed about you. It is what's behind everything 'you'. But it can never be found... Like a black hole it can only be studied by its' effects.
 
I doubt we will ever find #3, cause if we were to find #3 we'd THINK it was #3 and, by definition, it'd become #1. #3 is the force behind every decision you make and every opinion formed about you. It is what's behind everything 'you'. But it can never be found... Like a black hole it can only be studied by its' effects.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you stop thinking. :D Or get better at it, and nolonger need to 'think' about wether you are wrong or right and realize that all else is illusion.
I think most people call it enlightenment.
 
Ah, but I don't believe in enlightenment, for this reason: I'd question my enlightenment. We can never be #3 because we can never KNOW anything. No matter what there will always be at least a small possibility of us being wrong. So the most you can accomplish is to THINK you're #3, to THINK you're enlightened. But then you're #1. Enlightened is who you think you are, not who you are. You can never be enlightened, you can just be more and more convinced of something. But you can never KNOW if that something is right or wrong.
 
Maybe it wouldn't matter if it was 'true' or not?

*Does anything matter?*

Hmm, circular thinking. The philosophical snake pitt.
Wouldn't it be dissapointing if the answere was no?
 
Hmm, and to this reasoning it would be simplest to label it as true, as the opposite is impossible to prove, so why make life more complicated than it has to be as it apparently isn't complcated at all because it exists independent of purpouse. Therefore the conclusion is that 'no' is the most feasible answere.

You are right, I'm not dissapointed atall. Infact I feel slightly elated. It feels so damn good to just say, 'It doesn't fucking matter' to everything.
This may not last though. But that doesn't matter.
 
'Enlightenment' is the result of your current hatred of yourself. The closest you'll ever get to enlightenment is to realize you don't need it.
 
Enlightened is who you think you are,
Click to expand...

To be "enlightened" would require no thought. To put it simple it would be to just be. It requires no effort. Enlightenemnt is about letting go. Letting go of opinions and desires. Letting go of thoughts and emotions that swirl around in your head. Letting go of the struggle that we have come to difineour existance as. The only struggle in our own minds. The ego defines its existance as struggle.

'Enlightenment' is the result of your current hatred of yourself.
Click to expand...
Bullshit Notme... If you hated yourself I really don't think you could be enlightened.

Doubt and that endless need to quench yourself. An end to racing thoughts a clear mind, an end to the suffering that somes with it. By the very nature of this subjet rationalizingit will only feed the flames of your "ego". The inhrent dilusion of of wandering in idle imagination.

Unless you "are" you will never directly experience reality. In that sense anything we say while under the grand delusion is pointless.

Debate this if you want rationalize and disect it to hell. The bottom line is "Elightenment" cannot be rationalized. It is a direct experience of reality and truth. It must be understood not rationalized.

Do you really think humans where born into a deluded state of rationalization. Before language you did not think in words. You would experience and understand. So what ever I say is probably wrong. I am trying to convay an understanding in a limited way. Like I said it must be understood. Really think what you want.
You are right, I'm not dissapointed atall. Infact I feel slightly elated.
Click to expand...
Opinion on a realization. Why impose it?
 
Tbe "enlightened" would require know thought. To but it simple it would be to just be. It requires know thought or effort. Enlightenemnt is about letting go. Letting go of opinions and desires. Letting go of thoughts and emotions that swirl around in your head.
Click to expand...
Says who?
Bullshit Notme... If you hated yourself I really don't think you could be enlightened.
Click to expand...
You're not understanding. I mean the concept of enlightenment is born of your hatred for yourself. You hate yourself and think enlightenment is the goal. All you need to realize is you're fine the way you are. This is the closest thing to enlightenment I see possible.
Unless you "are" you will never directly experience reality. In that sense anything we say while under the grand delusion is pointless.
Click to expand...
No one will ever directly experience reality. Our senses will always be inbetween.
Debate this if you want rationalize and disect it to hell. The bottom line is "Elightenment" cannot be rationalized. It is a direct experience of reality and truth. It must be understood not rationalized.
Click to expand...
So basicly you're saying enlightenment is a state of mind. What you THINK you are. Rationalization is something that applies to anything REAL. So if you are telling me not to rationalize it, you're basicly saying it can only exist in your mind. No argument here.
Do you really think humans where born into a deluded state of rationalization. Before language you did not think in words. You would experience and understand.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between not searching, and understanding. Just cause you don't have to ask the question doesn't mean you understand the answer. You are telling me to stop caring about the answer and just "be". I'm not interested in blissful ignorance.
 
If you really think those questions are stupid then I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top