Identity Play and the "True Self"

[Solfege]

This was partly inspired by XIII's experiment and the various responses generated by it, although it's been rolling around in my head for a while and isn't directed toward anyone in particular.

We often hear people talk about this proverbial True Self ™ at the core of one's being. Outside of that, one constructs countless personas to deal with various situations in reality. INTPs, in their quests for Truth, can be especially susceptible to this view. But I wonder--are the personas less real simply because they aren't the original core? And is one persona more real than the others simply because we present it to the world more often?

To offer a somewhat simplified analogy: it's absurd to point to any single part of a tree and call it the "true tree." The branches are as much a part of the tree as the trunk and the roots, regardless of size, shape, or the amount of sunlight they receive. The branches contribute to the entire tree's survival, even though a tree can grow new ones and can usually afford to lose a one without dying. Furthermore, each branch is unique, but none of them is any "truer" than the others. Then, on each large branch, there are smaller ones, on which there are leaves (during the right seasons, that is) which are all part of the branch, and the structure continues in a fractal-like fashion.

Likewise, one's outwardly expressed personas are all different, but no single persona is more or less real than the others. Furthermore, the personalities may be rooted in a single source, but perhaps it's not entirely correct to hail the core as the One True Self, even if it is more essential or permanent than the personas. Like tree branches, one's outward selves contribute to the growth of the core by interacting with the physical world, and I'm sure shades and nuances exist within each persona as well. I'm not saying that personas can't be used falsely or manipulatively, but it's unfair to devalue the facets that stem from the core and in turn help to nourish it.

In other words, each of us can be millions of people (and other things), and none of them have to be considered fake. In fact, the half-illusions they create may shed some light on the truth, if such a thing exists.

I hope that wasn't entirely incoherent. It's kind of late.

 

[Tyria]

The Self (True Self shortened) is a summation of the selves expressed. It consists of minor, major, and unknown selves. I use the terms minor, major, and unknown to refer to the person's awareness of the mask and the frequency which the self is projected. Thus, selves are like lenses and the body housing those lenses is a projector with a beam of light streaming forth.

Whether those personas are the 'real' person or not has no consequence. It is of critical importance though as to whether they contain pieces or shards of the Self. We seek truth in these personas, not the person.

Some personas or masks are made hastily and without any piece of the Self. Think of these as sacrifices to protect the Self; whether from social interaction, injury (real or imagined), etc. etc. It is by interaction, reflection, and others that we become aware of our personas. Whether we like what we see is a different story.

 

[LucasM]

Self is vague, a cloud in a sky.

One sees a tiger, the other a car, yet is the same cloud in the sky.

Whence the difference?

Can a definition act as a cage?

 

[severus]

It would depend
on whether the persona is a particular part of the personality, or if it was made up and forced into being. Like gluing a fake plastic branch to the tree.

The True Self would be the whole tree--not the trunk/roots--and would not contain the plastic branches.

 

[Solfege]

Crimson_Knight, I like how you differentiated between the types of masks, and I tend to agree with your first point. I guess if part of a tree hardly ever sees sunlight--like a "minor" or "unknown self"--it doesn't contribute much to the tree as a whole.

Some personas or masks are made hastily and without any piece of the Self. Think of these as sacrifices to protect the Self; whether from social interaction, injury (real or imagined), etc. etc.

It would depend
on whether the persona is a particular part of the personality, or if it was made up and forced into being. Like gluing a fake plastic branch to the tree.

Is it really possible, though, for a persona to be entirely removed from the Self? The creation of a mask requires resources within oneself. There's no way to just grab one out of thin air. If you are able to create the mask, doesn't it follow that the ingredients/shards must be somewhere in you, no matter how tenuous the connection is? Is it possible to have a completely plastic branch?

Self is vague, a cloud in a sky.
...
Can a definition act as a cage?

Not per se, but yes, if we will or imagine it to be. I do think that many people see themselves as smaller and fewer than they really are. On second thought, the tree may be too rigid of a comparison. Identity is indeed more vague/fluid than that...but the general concept would still apply. (Besides, even a tree can change, and can be viewed from different perspectives.)

 

[Felan]

When I was in fifth and sixth grade I set about creating an inventory of the things I wanted to see in myself. Gradually that list in large part (though not fully) became who I am today. The person that created that persona "died" for the lack of better terminology. It is a faded sensation now and increasingly it is a memory of a memory, so perhaps it was something else.

I have created different persona's (online) before. At first it feels strange and there is for me a sensation of a physical shift in my brain. Eventually the change can happen with greater ease and less noticable sensation.

I've noticed that the different persona are more fragile in that they can be disrupted like the surface of a pond. Unable to deal the waves I revert to the default self that is me. I usually find an excuse to leave when that happens.

Even though the alternative persona becomes easier to assume the ecosystem it is operating in creates a pressure. If the persona is truly different then the details of that persona's life should be different. The identity stresses the threads that tether it to my real self.

I have not been successful at casting another personality grounded in reality, though I do borrow aspects to shade my base personality. Often those borrowed aspects are from a different online persona of myself.

 

[Weliddryn]

True self is a term that is, perhaps, thought too much into. A person's identity is not constant, it adjusts through time. A person must adapt to different situations and environments, and the way they adjust to these situations is still part of who they are. A human has what they are born with which is genetically inherited through parents and through these genes the person grows and develops- they are psychologically and physically influenced by these genes. After that, environment plays its hands (no one person has the same exact experiences of another) and both of these together give a person their identity- their true self. In the case of an act, an act is apart of the person. Humans act towards one another differently than what they would with other humans- they put on an act in the face of different people. It is a natural adjustment. The extent of which an act is depicted and the intent behind doing so may lead a person to believe that they (the person delivering the act) is straying further from their "true self" but, in reality, that act is a part of them. It becomes their experiences (the act) and they can only be what they know (you can only act as something you have experience in, even if that experience is drawn vicariously and/or combined with multiple experiences).

^^I have no idea if that made any sense, I was doing multiple things whilst making this post. Oh well.

 

[Solfege]

Felan:
Your experience reminds me of the Ship of Theseus paradox.

I, too, experience a curious mental (and sometimes even mildly physical) shift when roleplaying a persona, and the mask is easily disrupted if I'm not accustomed to it. In the case of a fictional character with a unique history, it's as though the mask is neither entirely my own nor entirely the character's, but rather an ongoing collaboration between us. But that's not accurate either, as the only version of the character I know is own my interpretation, which means he/she still originates from me to an extent. How would you describe your degree of attachment to your online personas?

Weliddryn:
"Thought too much into" is how I would describe it as well. I partly started this thread because I wasn't sure if a stable core/self even existed and found it a bit strange that the concept is so mythologized and idealized. I also agree that the act is part of the person (which is basically what I tried but perhaps failed to say in the original post), but that it's common for people to view some of their own acts as alien. Could it be because an untried mask can be uncomfortable and even intrusive, to the extent that even their creators reject them?

When people tell me to "be myself," I never know how, or what that phrase even means.

 

[echoplex]

I think that often "true self" is nothing more than the term people use to express the aspirational ideal form of their self. They're telling you what they want to be probably more so than what they are. The idea one has of themselves is almost undoubtedly subjective. So it's no surprise that what we consider to be most "true" of ourselves is often a version that can serve to eliminate responsibility by attributing some actions as "not the real me." The potential for ego preservation is certainly there.

And to the tree analogy, I think an objective perspective of someone's true self is that the entire tree, branches and all, is the most accurate description. It's hard to really grasp the future. It's even harder to grasp the theoretically timeless and limitless idea of total potential. I mean, when you think about all you could've been or could ever be, you realize that the possibilities are practically limitless. Are any of those other potential yous any less you?

That said, there is nothing wrong with choosing who you want to be and striving to embody that. It's just that an objective view of your self will always reveal something more complicated than that.

 

[Felan]

How would you describe your degree of attachment to your online personas?

Hmm, it varies. I usually have one very intense one going to is as to complete as I can manage. I have had a number of intense persona's over the years some brief some that were stable for years. My current one I've had for three years I think. I will have an additional two or three satellite persona's that are only lightly crafted.

I also create persona's when I play games. This tendancy shifts my attention toward single player games where I can play with the persona within in the limits of the game. Sometimes the structure of the game frustrates my attempts to play out the persona's story.

 

[XIII]

Well you see the map is not the territory so no matter what we say none of our words can ever actually be all of what we are talking about! So I guess XIII1 just decided something was interesting and did it because he knew whatever he thought would be very different after his experiences and maybe even completely new and never thought before because of how strange they were! Crazy
Look how many different reasons and explanations he's given for just one thing . I think it's kind of funny to him sometimes because you don't get good at chess just by talking about it, u get good by playing it!

 

[snowqueen]

Self is vague, a cloud in a sky.

One sees a tiger, the other a car, yet is the same cloud in the sky.

Whence the difference?

Can a definition act as a cage?

I think this is an excellent question - because the 'one' seeing is also oneself, no?

When I was in fifth and sixth grade I set about creating an inventory of the things I wanted to see in myself. Gradually that list in large part (though not fully) became who I am today. The person that created that persona "died" for the lack of better terminology. It is a faded sensation now and increasingly it is a memory of a memory, so perhaps it was something else.

I have not been successful at casting another personality grounded in reality, though I do borrow aspects to shade my base personality. Often those borrowed aspects are from a different online persona of myself.

I also had an inventory of things I wanted to see in myself in order to become a 'better' person and felt that my childhood self faded away. The trouble is that ability to keep changing seems paradoxically to have led me further and further away from what I wanted although I thought that was what I wanted at the time. Now looking back it seems rather that much of what I wanted was in response to the feelings of isolation and otherness I felt and wanted to reverse, along with very strong internalised messages from my mother about what I should be if I were at all an acceptable human being. It's not all bad, but now I've discovered I'm an INTP a strange thing has happened and I have encountered long-forgotten parts of me that I am so happy to regain. Perhaps if I had known my type long ago I wouldn't have had to reach my 50s before starting to feel comfortable with myself.

Felan:
Your experience reminds me of the Ship of Theseus paradox..

Is it actually true that every cell of our body is replaced every 7 years? I've often wondered what the implication of that is (apart from ageing which I believe is to do with increasingly poor cell replication). I wrote a short story about it once.

I partly started this thread because I wasn't sure if a stable core/self even existed and found it a bit strange that the concept is so mythologized and idealized. I also agree that the act is part of the person (which is basically what I tried but perhaps failed to say in the original post), but that it's common for people to view some of their own acts as alien. Could it be because an untried mask can be uncomfortable and even intrusive, to the extent that even their creators reject them?

I don't believe in a core self or a true self but I also don't think that necessarily means there isn't anything constant (apologies for the double negative). I certainly don't believe our experience of ourselves arises from anything non-material so we believe we are who we are through imprints on our physical body - not just the brain. I guess we can create new personae because of brain plasticity, but perhaps we are born with certain tendencies. In that sense I really like the tree metaphor. A oak can grow in lots of different ways but still maintains its recognisable oak qualities. Perhaps the MBTI types are different species of human?! I certainly don't think I've really ever been anything else even when I've been mirroring or acting like other types.

When people tell me to "be myself," I never know how, or what that phrase even means

Yeah, there is that too.

 

[Da Blob]

I have written about the topic of "Self and Identity" at length on other threads. I find the subject fascinating (perhaps a tendency towards Narcissism, eh?).
A few notes.
All we can ever know about Self
takes the form of a reflection,
there is no direct experience of Self.
People are one mirror for reflection.
but it is always a distorted image we see from them,
because they are distorted not us
Dreams another mirror
thoughts another mirror
All that is called "MINE"
is another mirror
All that is called Time
is a hall of mirrors
God the ultimate mirror
The reflection that is "WE"
is the ultimate self