True Self vs Shown Self

[Anew Leaf]

I think that with all of the posts in this thread, most of what I have to say has already been covered.

But, I'll post anyway.

I think we're always being 'ourselves', even if we're hiding a portion, or putting any number of veneers, either partial or full, to navigate whatever environment we find ourselves in. I don't even think this is a negative thing all of the time; I think soon after we're born, we begin picking up on cues, and learning and reacting and assessing how different things we do will ilicit different reactions from others, saying certain things in certain environments could have negative consequences, etc. Also over time learning that for various reasons others may try to take advantage of any number of things, to *their* advantage - it's like a constant dynamic thing, everyone simultaneously learning to interact with one another, trying to figure out how they fit into the world around them, constant adjustment, give and take, learning to let go of certain aspects of our individual Egos so as to be able to interact with others and to be able to give to and love others.

So I'm not even sure what the 'true self' is. Because ourselves minus others is... what? No reference point, really. Would it be our infant self the minute we're born, prior to learning we're not the only person in the world? 100% ego?

So I guess my point is, is I think the shell around the 'seed' is very much our 'true self' too, as each of us develops our own unique 'shell', or way to interact with others - of knowing we're not the only people on the planet. And that level will vary from one person to the next, so everyone is still unique in that sense.

I think we could all lock ourselves in relative isolation for a long while, in the attempt to 'know ourselves' and figure out who we are, and I think that will give us a certain amount of self-awareness, for sure. But the minute we're then placed in the company of others, all or much of that becomes irrelevant, because there's a whole other layer of Self that we then don't know - we don't know who we are in relation to others, and how we in fact want these relationships to be - so we're just as lost / unknowing of ourselves minus others, as wholly with others. It's definitely a balance - and I think both components are necessary to learning who we are and learning our 'true selves'.

(myself, for the record... I have a pretty stunted understanding of 'who I am' in relation to others)

This is a really interesting viewpoint my dear cascade. (Kind of makes me think it's an interesting dissertation on the differences between Fi and Fe, )

I sort of desire to come at the idea of my true self from the POV of keeping myself intact and separate. But you point out an interesting dynamic with the selves that interact with others still being a layer.

I like this new thought and angle. I will respond more later.

 

[Coriolis]

I think we're always being 'ourselves', even if we're hiding a portion, or putting any number of veneers, either partial or full, to navigate whatever environment we find ourselves in. I don't even think this is a negative thing all of the time; I think soon after we're born, we begin picking up on cues, and learning and reacting and assessing how different things we do will ilicit different reactions from others, saying certain things in certain environments could have negative consequences, etc. Also over time learning that for various reasons others may try to take advantage of any number of things, to *their* advantage - it's like a constant dynamic thing, everyone simultaneously learning to interact with one another, trying to figure out how they fit into the world around them, constant adjustment, give and take, learning to let go of certain aspects of our individual Egos so as to be able to interact with others and to be able to give to and love others.

So I'm not even sure what the 'true self' is. Because ourselves minus others is... what? No reference point, really. Would it be our infant self the minute we're born, prior to learning we're not the only person in the world? 100% ego?

By "ourselves minus others" do you mean each of us when we are alone, or are you trying to strip away the formative influence of other people in our lives? The second is almost impossible, but the first is easily seen. Regarding the highlighted, it is in the nature of some people to be much more private and guarded than others. For them, to share openly and intimately with people at large is not being themselves. One helpful question might be: when you do reveal something of yourself to others, it it accurate, or a false impression? There is a difference between hiding what you are, and pretending to be what you are not.

 

[cascadeco]

I sort of desire to come at the idea of my true self from the POV of keeping myself intact and separate. But you point out an interesting dynamic with the selves that interact with others still being a layer.

I really like the concept of my true internal self... as I DO think there's a more 'pure' aspect of myself that's just ME, plain and simple. But it's more that I can't conceptualize ME without others - without others also building upon that ME - because I know it's the case, from infancy and beyond. I'm who I am in part because through recognition of other people, I know what qualities I have that they lack, and vice versa... so part of the definition of who I am - the very ability to define - is because I have external modes of comparison, if you will. iow, if I never came in contact with anyone in my entire life, I'd have no idea I had blonde hair - that sort of thing. Or, I might not know I like things to be clean (I might not define that as a relevant attribute of myself), if I never came across people who didn't clean their bathroom for 5 months. These are lame examples, but it's what I meant by also knowing oneself by the fact that we have reference points in others. I have to think this starts super early in life.

By "ourselves minus others" do you mean each of us when we are alone, or are you trying to strip away the formative influence of other people in our lives? The second is almost impossible, but the first is easily seen.

Yes, this is what I mean, and I agree it's pretty much impossible to remove the formative influence of people in our lives, and how we become/are as a result of that. (And it starts in infancy)

Regarding the highlighted, it is in the nature of some people to be much more private and guarded than others. For them, to share openly and intimately with people at large is not being themselves.

Definitely agree.

One helpful question might be: when you do reveal something of yourself to others, it it accurate, or a false impression? There is a difference between hiding what you are, and pretending to be what you are not.

This is a good distinction. I think when interacting for long periods in environments which force one to 'be' someone they're not (to create a deliberately false impression or simply because they do not like 'who they really are', or other such things), that's when a fundamental dischord will develop - the person knows there's a breakdown and there's that deliberate act of hiding something, out of shame, or to create a false impression, as you say.

I think striving to remove any of that dischord is moving towards a 'true self', and aligning the internal with the external; moving towards environments/people that allow for a flourishing of the internal, as well as recognizing that NOT disclosing all of the internal can be quite 'true' as well.

*head scratch* - hard to articulate!

 

[Anew Leaf]

I really like the concept of my true internal self... as I DO think there's a more 'pure' aspect of myself that's just ME, plain and simple. But it's more that I can't conceptualize ME without others - without others also building upon that ME - because I know it's the case, from infancy and beyond. I'm who I am in part because through recognition of other people, I know what qualities I have that they lack, and vice versa... so part of the definition of who I am - the very ability to define - is because I have external modes of comparison, if you will. iow, if I never came in contact with anyone in my entire life, I'd have no idea I had blonde hair - that sort of thing. Or, I might not know I like things to be clean (I might not define that as a relevant attribute of myself), if I never came across people who didn't clean their bathroom for 5 months. These are lame examples, but it's what I meant by also knowing oneself by the fact that we have reference points in others. I have to think this starts super early in life.

I get the heart of what you are talking about here, and that matters more than elegant examples. There is a definite truth in that ourselves are partially defined by others.

I think the keyest part for me is that I always strive for trying to be mindful of how I come off to others, while still ultimately staying true to what my inner compass is telling me. In the end, that is what matters the most to me, and it's why I keep it locked away deep inside.

There clearly has to be a mix of both because we are social creations and need the interactions of others. I struggle at times because I am naturally so dismissive of external feedback, and yet... much like how I cannot lick my own elbow, I occasionally do need others.

Somewhere inside of all of us is some pure little tendril of spring curling its way through our soul. Which must be protected, but at the same time still needs some sun to grow.

This is a good distinction. I think when interacting for long periods in environments which force one to 'be' someone they're not (to create a deliberately false impression or simply because they do not like 'who they really are', or other such things), that's when a fundamental dischord will develop - the person knows there's a breakdown and there's that deliberate act of hiding something, out of shame, or to create a false impression, as you say.

I think striving to remove any of that dischord is moving towards a 'true self', and aligning the internal with the external; moving towards environments/people that allow for a flourishing of the internal, as well as recognizing that NOT disclosing all of the internal can be quite 'true' as well.

*head scratch* - hard to articulate!

You did well to articulate.

I often wonder how aware people are of their own inner discord when it comes to these things. I find that a lot of people are blissfully unaware of how they come across and how false their projected self rings when compared to the self they show under the layers. It's like seeing someone in an ill fitting costume at Walmart.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I think a lot of social situations we are in have expectations of behavior, dress, speech, etc, so parts of ourselves will be hidden. We interact with our friends in ways different from what we'd interact with our co-workers, likewise with our significant others, family, etc. To show our true self would require a situation where we are in an environment that we can let our true self out. There's certain aspects about ourselves that we feel comfortable revealing to others. It depends on how private an individual is. Some people readily reveal aspects of themselves, others prefer to keep it hidden. Level of social ease and trust is involved along with social expectations.

 

[sprinkles]

The world of the mind is on a separate plane from the physical world so it logically follows that the true self is not the same as the shown self though there may be some elegant connections.

It's all one and it is all nothing. Separateness is an illusion.

Some ask "what was your original face before you were born?"

This also applies to "what was your original mind before you were born?"

 

[Coriolis]

I really like the concept of my true internal self... as I DO think there's a more 'pure' aspect of myself that's just ME, plain and simple. But it's more that I can't conceptualize ME without others - without others also building upon that ME - because I know it's the case, from infancy and beyond. I'm who I am in part because through recognition of other people, I know what qualities I have that they lack, and vice versa... so part of the definition of who I am - the very ability to define - is because I have external modes of comparison, if you will. iow, if I never came in contact with anyone in my entire life, I'd have no idea I had blonde hair - that sort of thing. Or, I might not know I like things to be clean (I might not define that as a relevant attribute of myself), if I never came across people who didn't clean their bathroom for 5 months. These are lame examples, but it's what I meant by also knowing oneself by the fact that we have reference points in others. I have to think this starts super early in life.

People are not the only reference points, or even the only external reference points. I can use myself as a reference point: when I am sick and don't feel like cleaning up, my house gets messy, and when I feel better I realize I don't like it. Absent other people, I can still tell my preferences, I might just assume they would hold for others as well. I can also see what I am able to accomplish - whether I meet my needs for the day, or am better at some skill or ability as a result of practice or conscious study. I can identify and pursue the questions or activities that interest me, all without reference to anyone else. (Te vs. Fe again?)

I think a lot of social situations we are in have expectations of behavior, dress, speech, etc, so parts of ourselves will be hidden. We interact with our friends in ways different from what we'd interact with our co-workers, likewise with our significant others, family, etc. To show our true self would require a situation where we are in an environment that we can let our true self out. There's certain aspects about ourselves that we feel comfortable revealing to others. It depends on how private an individual is. Some people readily reveal aspects of themselves, others prefer to keep it hidden. Level of social ease and trust is involved along with social expectations.

Are you equating one's true self with one's complete self? Like others, I show a different part of myself with close friends or my SO than at work, but these are all part of the real me. Any masks serve to hide the parts I don't want to share, not to modify the parts I will share. Hardly anyone ever sees the complete me at one time - it is almost impossible, even if I wanted to do it.

 

[cascadeco]

People are not the only reference points, or even the only external reference points. I can use myself as a reference point: when I am sick and don't feel like cleaning up, my house gets messy, and when I feel better I realize I don't like it. Absent other people, I can still tell my preferences, I might just assume they would hold for others as well. I can also see what I am able to accomplish - whether I meet my needs for the day, or am better at some skill or ability as a result of practice or conscious study. I can identify and pursue the questions or activities that interest me, all without reference to anyone else. (Te vs. Fe again?)

I don't know, I can relate to all of that as well. I think I am trying to conceptualize of an extreme that does not exist - i.e. never interacting with anyone - to illustrate that our very interactions / knowledge of others can and does play into our conception of self. I'm definitely not saying it's the only thing, though. My love of nature is intrinsic to who I am. [but had my grandfather not seen me looking in his bird book when I was young, and then decided to give me a book for my b-day the following year, would I have then 'found it' / it have become a part of me in the same way? It's an interesting question. I have no idea.] I could list other things that I think I know of myself and define as who I am at my core, minus any need/comparison with others, but again I'm just musing.. would I know of this/have this identity if I had grown up in the non-existent extreme of never interacting with others?

 

[CuriousFeeling]

Are you equating one's true self with one's complete self? Like others, I show a different part of myself with close friends or my SO than at work, but these are all part of the real me. Any masks serve to hide the parts I don't want to share, not to modify the parts I will share. Hardly anyone ever sees the complete me at one time - it is almost impossible, even if I wanted to do it.

Yes, essentially I'm equating true self along with complete self. Parts of the real person, yes, but not the complete picture. If what we're focusing on here in this thread is modifying ourselves with others, then it may also be connected to showing complete self, but it's more relevant to withholding our true selves.

 

[sprinkles]

People are not the only reference points, or even the only external reference points. I can use myself as a reference point: when I am sick and don't feel like cleaning up, my house gets messy, and when I feel better I realize I don't like it. Absent other people, I can still tell my preferences, I might just assume they would hold for others as well. I can also see what I am able to accomplish - whether I meet my needs for the day, or am better at some skill or ability as a result of practice or conscious study. I can identify and pursue the questions or activities that interest me, all without reference to anyone else. (Te vs. Fe again?)

Everything references to the universe. [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] was actually on the right track with this.
People are not the only reference points but you still must reference to your environment. If you had no environment, you have no preferences - barring the fact that you wouldn't be alive in the first place.

That which ensures that you are born and stay alive also reflects onto you and at the same time ensures these preferences.

 

[Coriolis]

Everything references to the universe. [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] was actually on the right track with this.
People are not the only reference points but you still must reference to your environment. If you had no environment, you have no preferences - barring the fact that you wouldn't be alive in the first place.

Obviously. People are only one part of that environment, though, and I tend to use other parts of the environment for reference. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

 

[1487610420]

I think that with all of the posts in this thread, most of what I have to say has already been covered.

But, I'll post anyway.

I think we're always being 'ourselves', even if we're hiding a portion, or putting any number of veneers, either partial or full, to navigate whatever environment we find ourselves in. I don't even think this is a negative thing all of the time; I think soon after we're born, we begin picking up on cues, and learning and reacting and assessing how different things we do will ilicit different reactions from others, saying certain things in certain environments could have negative consequences, etc. Also over time learning that for various reasons others may try to take advantage of any number of things, to *their* advantage - it's like a constant dynamic thing, everyone simultaneously learning to interact with one another, trying to figure out how they fit into the world around them, constant adjustment, give and take, learning to let go of certain aspects of our individual Egos so as to be able to interact with others and to be able to give to and love others.

So I'm not even sure what the 'true self' is. Because ourselves minus others is... what? No reference point, really. Would it be our infant self the minute we're born, prior to learning we're not the only person in the world? 100% ego?

So I guess my point is, is I think the shell around the 'seed' is very much our 'true self' too, as each of us develops our own unique 'shell', or way to interact with others - of knowing we're not the only people on the planet. And that level will vary from one person to the next, so everyone is still unique in that sense.

I think we could all lock ourselves in relative isolation for a long while, in the attempt to 'know ourselves' and figure out who we are, and I think that will give us a certain amount of self-awareness, for sure. But the minute we're then placed in the company of others, all or much of that becomes irrelevant, because there's a whole other layer of Self that we then don't know - we don't know who we are in relation to others, and how we in fact want these relationships to be - so we're just as lost / unknowing of ourselves minus others, as wholly with others. It's definitely a balance - and I think both components are necessary to learning who we are and learning our 'true selves'.

(myself, for the record... I have a pretty stunted understanding of 'who I am' in relation to others)

It's curious you wrote this, as it's exactly part of text that came to mind:

Ego - The False Center
The first thing to be understood is what ego is. A child is born. A child is born without any knowledge, any consciousness of his own self. And when a child is born the first thing he becomes aware of is not himself; the first thing he becomes aware of is the other. It is natural, because the eyes open outwards, the hands touch others, the ears listen to others, the tongue tastes food and the nose smells the outside. All these senses open outwards.

That is what birth means. Birth means coming into this world, the world of the outside. So when a child is born, he is born into this world. He opens his eyes, sees others. 'Other' means the thou. He becomes aware of the mother first. Then, by and by, he becomes aware of his own body. That too is the other, that too belongs to the world. He is hungry and he feels the body; his need is satisfied, he forgets the body.

This is how a child grows. First he becomes aware of you, thou, other, and then by and by, in contrast to you, thou, he becomes aware of himself.

This awareness is a reflected awareness. He is not aware of who he is. He is simply aware of the mother and what she thinks about him. If she smiles, if she appreciates the child, if she says, "You are beautiful," if she hugs and kisses him, the child feels good about himself. Now an ego is born.

Through appreciation, love, care, he feels he is good, he feels he is valuable, he feels he has some significance.

A center is born.

continue reading

 

[Mole]

The Iself and the Eself

The true self is now the content of the shown self, in the same way that theatre is the content of the movies.

The true self is the literate self and the shown self is the electonic self.

The individual self, the iself, is created by reading books alone, while the electronic self, the eself, is created by communing together on Typology Central.

So the iself is now the content of the eself.

 

[Salomé]

The examples given were that we can see a seed and to us it is just a seed. We don't see the plant or the tree or the flower that is hidden inside of it. Or we see a caterpillar and don't realize that a butterfly is inside of it. Or we simply see each other and don't realize that someone else is inside of us.

Do you think this is true about your own self? If so, do you know what it is inside of you that no one sees? If not, do you think you are showing your true self quite often?

A caterpillar doesn't have a butterfly inside of it. It (may or may not) have the potential to become a butterfly. It could just as easily become a meal / part of the tissues of a bird. The same goes for a seed. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, it's a caterpillar and is constrained to do caterpillar things. It doesn't even have a inkling of its potential ability to fly. To focus on "potential" is to deny the immediate, deny the moment, deny the reality of now. It's a mistake NFs often make.

The distinction between "true" self and "false" self is similar fruitless speculation. All that matters is how we actually treat each other and how we conduct ourselves, today. Everything else is irrelevant/ may never come to pass.

Everything I do is part of my "true" self. Because "I" did it. No phantom, no puppet, just me. Similarly, I cannot own as my "true" self those things I do not make manifest but merely fantasise are true of me. If I think myself a sensitive soul but act like a thug, I am still a thug. Worse - a deluded thug.

 

[Anew Leaf]

A caterpillar doesn't have a butterfly inside of it. It (may or may not) have the potential to become a butterfly. It could just as easily become a meal / part of the tissues of a bird. The same goes for a seed. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, it's a caterpillar and is constrained to do caterpillar things. It doesn't even have a inkling of its potential ability to fly. To focus on "potential" is to deny the immediate, deny the moment, deny the reality of now. It's a mistake NFs often make.

The distinction between "true" self and "false" self is similar fruitless speculation. All that matters is how we actually treat each other and how we conduct ourselves, today. Everything else is irrelevant/ may never come to pass.

Everything I do is part of my "true" self. Because "I" did it. No phantom, no puppet, just me. Similarly, I cannot own as my "true" self those things I do not make manifest but merely fantasise are true of me. If I think myself a sensitive soul but act like a thug, I am still a thug. Worse - a deluded thug.

Interesting viewpoint.

You provide a good reminder to be cognizant of the present state of being. I think that the best path most likely lays in between the two extremes of "future potential" and "present reality." There is nothing wrong with desiring to be something beyond what you are currently. The best place to start is by recognizing what you have in yourself now and pushing yourself along a new trajectory.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Vasilisa]

I can understand why xNFPs, or anyone for that matter, may find alluring the idea of the self that is true and pure manifesting unencumbered. I have been seeking self-awareness since I was young, and there are insights, and corresponding adjustments to my behavior, but still it isn't like I dig and dig and come upon one solid treasure chest. Its all small fragments. I love the concept of transformation, of people choosing to become what they desire for themselves, metamorphosis. Someone once told me our ability to consciously make changes in ourselves is what separates us from the animals. Its not quite like putting on a mask, for even the way we navigate social expectations is an expression of whats inside. I guess that when I leave people to fill in the blanks, when I let their fantasy dictate the way I choose to present myself is when I am being most untrue. I am aware of this, and thats the first step.

Still seems relevant:

I like Andrew Soloman's words:

One would like to demarcate clearly the boundaries of the self. In fact, no essential self lies pure as a vein of gold under the chaos of experience and chemistry. The human organism is a sequence of selves that succumb to or choose one another. We are each the sum of certain choices and circumstances; the self exists in the narrow space where the world and our choices come together. ... We can never escape from choice itself. One's self lies in the choosing, every choice, every day.

 

[Anew Leaf]

I can understand why xNFPs, or anyone for that matter, may find alluring the idea of the self that is true and pure manifesting unencumbered. I have been seeking self-awareness since I was young, and there are insights, and corresponding adjustments to my behavior, but still it isn't like I dig and dig and come upon one solid treasure chest. Its all small fragments. I love the concept of transformation, of people choosing to become what they desire for themselves, metamorphosis. Someone once told me our ability to consciously make changes in ourselves is what separates us from the animals. Its not quite like putting on a mask, for even the way we navigate social expectations is an expression of whats inside. I guess that when I leave people to fill in the blanks, when I let their fantasy dictate the way I choose to present myself is when I am being most untrue. I am aware of this, and thats the first step.

Still seems relevant:

Beautifully written as well. I am not looking for one right answer here, because I don't think there can be one right answer. I am really enjoying seeing different perspectives and where they come from on this idea.

I have an INFJ friend who is always on her own path of selfdiscovery, and I love checking in with her to see how she approaches this matter. It's so different from my own, and delightful to get new ideas on how I can further explore things.

I also like the idea of transformation... it's an interesting mix of digging for the treasure inside of you and also attempting to hone your trajectory towards a certain goal. Ultimately it's all about balance.

 

[sprinkles]

I also like the idea of transformation... it's an interesting mix of digging for the treasure inside of you and also attempting to hone your trajectory towards a certain goal. Ultimately it's all about balance.

Daiju visited the master Baso in China. Baso asked: "What do you seek?"
"Enlightenment," replied Daiju.
"You have your own treasure house. Why do you search outside?" Baso asked.
Daiju inquired: "Where is my treasure house?"
Baso answered: "What you are asking is your treasure house."
Daiju was enlightened! Ever after he urged his friends: "Open your own tresure house and use those treasures."

 

[Coriolis]

I also like the idea of transformation... it's an interesting mix of digging for the treasure inside of you and also attempting to hone your trajectory towards a certain goal. Ultimately it's all about balance.

As Salome observed, the caterpillar is not a butterfly. (I was waiting for someone to say so.) It does not even have the capacity to wish to become one. The inner city high school student similarly is not a lawyer. Dissimilarly, however, he can dream of becoming one, and let that ambition motivate and guide his progress until he makes it a reality. The dream itself is thus part of his here-and-now, as much as the gangs, drugs and poverty that might fill his environment. His future is thus inextricably tied to his understanding that he need not be limited by his present. Unlike the caterpillar, he cannot leave realization of his potential to the autopilot of genetic programming.

 

[Poki]

Its funny that alot of people out there cant see my true self because of my true self. They cant see passed one side of me to see my other side.