Know thy self.

It's very common on A2K. farmerman is a particularly chronic case. But he's not alone. I only picked him out because he's always insulting me.

the fox follows its own scent

that was so profound, thank you.

Self observation is extremely difficult and is the starting point of much popular esoteric philosophy and psychology. If you Google "Practical Philosophy" you will get an idea of its world wide appeal. Academic psychology has littke to say of any interest in this matter,

Yes--it stumped me.

Having read a great deal of what passes for "academic philosophy" I have gained the impression that self observation is the only subject matter to those engaged in that activity.

i hate that saying , know thy self.


wtf does it mean?

for me it means migrating to the wilderness because i crave freedom above all things..

but wtf good deo that do me?

Know thy language . . . thyself is one word.

I honestly don't think it's that difficult if you are prepared to look (though I note that only a very small percentge are prepared to look)

For myself, I wanted to find a way that allowed me to grow (of my own accord, and at my own direction). Self Help books could help increase awareness, but the adoption of particular skills would be extremely difficult (eventually I found that the adoption of particular concepts was a better way). I came up with the idea of eliminating self deception (or at least learning to recognise it), and gaining awareness of myself.

What I can say now, is I can recognise that voice in me that disagrees with a concept that I want to adopt. I can tell myself "yadda yadda yadda" and sometimes I will feel a little quaver that is scared or some similar reaction, and recognise it for what it is. From there I am able to negotiate with it (ie a part of myself that is in conflict) and work towards a resolution. That recognition of that 'quaver' is one part of self observation.

There are many other things I observe in myself, and when I don't complete an interaction in a way that (for want of a better word) is uplifting, I am able to reflect on such, the 'attitude/beliefs etc' behind it, and move towards a more productive conceptual frame.

The strange thing is, I have a suspicion that this is not truly possible to explain it to anyone, without that person being very interested in the topic...I know I've read certain statements of concepts, which seemed self evident, but not realising that I didn't truly comprehend their meaning, until later in the search, where I suddenly went 'aha'. In many ways, I just don't know.

Btw Existential, I didn't really make sense of what you were saying in your original post.

Vikorr,

My statement about "difficulty" is in accordance with this link.
http://kesdjan.com/exercises/so.html
(by "centers" Ouspensky means cognitive activity is shared between "intellectual, emotional and mechanical centers" and that some of these centers do the "wrong activity". e.g. "circling thoughts" are a property og "the mechanical center" and are a "waste of energy" thereby impeding "progress".)

Thanks for the link Fresco. I have to say I disagree with a number of aspects of Oupensky's concept. Thinking of yourself as two people is a useful tool, but not the only valid way of observing oneself. I don't much agree that taking snapshots of the whole of yourself at any one moment in time, and compiling them all together over time is a good way to do this. In contrast, reflecting on how you believe others saw you in any one moment, is a good way to gain insight (though not the only way). But again, such things require (and oupensky mentions this, but not in so many words) that you not engage in self deception (which is a part he believes is rather difficult).

reflecting on how you believe others saw you is surely just conjecture. also, how can you detrmine whether you are or are not engaging in self-deception?

Of course reflecting on how others see you is pure conjecture, yet you can surmise things from how they react to you.

Where two or more parts of yourself in conflict, there is an element of self deception going on. When there's a little voice within you speaking, and you ignore it, you are engaging in self deception (whether it's telling you to do something, or telling you that you shouldn't, or that you are afraid, or something other). Learning to recognise inner conflict, and learnign to listen to that voice areways of overcoming self deception.

Having the honesty to accept that you aren't perfect, that your idea's and dearly held beliefs aren't perfect (ie they don't always make sense in all circumstance) is a stepping stone.

Knowing that humans have tendency to justify their actions to themselves helps.

I'm sure there's other ways, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

Two psychology professors were having lunch when a god-like creature appeared and told one of the professors, "I will grant you one of three things, strength, wisdom, or ten million dollars."

Without hesitation the professor said, "Wisdom."

"Your wish has been granted", replied the god-like creature as he vanished in thin air.

Nothing changed. The professor, after having his wish granted, just stared at the table.

The other professor said, "Say something!"

The guy replies, "I should have taken the money."

According to Ouspensky (et al) that"I" is also "an actor", being merely a temporary chairmen of a committee of actor"I's". It is one of those with "an intellectual persona". (Persona=Greek actors mask held in front of face). Self-observation involves being consciously aware of the committee.

That's one way to look at it. I did mention 'listenning to that little voice' in my above posts. And self conflict / internal conflict would involve a conflict between 'committee members', would it not?

After understanding that the self is not a passive observer of it's surroundings, but rather an active part of the experience that is being observed, it is only a short step to the realization that all observation is self observation.

Cyr,

Though I understand what you mean, I would dispute that. I can say, observe you 'picking up a pen'. That observation is not 'coloured' by me. I intuit from your actions that "You want to write something"...that IS coloured by 'me'. You then use the pen to poke a hole in some plastic wrapping "Oops, he must want to unwrapp what's wrapped up" is again coloured by 'me'. It's the assignation of meaning, not the observation itself that is influenced by 'me'.

Now, how do I 'self observe' from the fact I made a guess that 'he must want to unwrap whatever is wrapped up' ? (or the previous 'You want to write something'?). I take your point, but it's not a straightforward point.

The old saw that we all are three people is still reliable. We are:
1) The person we believe ourselves to be
2) The person others think we are
3) The person we are.

I presume the thesis here is to zero in on #3 and I doubt any of us can know all there is to know for certain as we have not yet experienced all that there is to experience or all that we will ever experience. Also each experience makes us a little different than we were before.

But there are those 'aha!' moments in which we come to understand a bit more of who we are, what we are or are not capable of, and, occasionally, why we are the way we are. For instance, I facilitate exercises in which people identify the basic temperaments that they were born with and which influence and/or drive their perceptions and decision making processes. Sometimes this is merely interesting and sometimes it is quite valuable to understand in order to know ourselves.

It is particularly valuable to learn that there really is nothing new under the sun, and each of us shares thoughts and perceptions in the same way as do at least some others.