Know Thyself

 

Know Thyself

This saying, an ancient Greek aphorism, implies that it is possible, even probable, that we do not already know ourselves. However, if someone says to me, “Know yourself”, am I not likely to reply, “I already know myself”? Certainly, reason tells me that I am in a better position to know myself than anyone else is.

However, if I pause to think about the matter objectively, I realize that there are many things about myself that I don’t know. For example, if I were suddenly faced with a life-or-death situation, how would I react? I would like to think that I would be calm and courageous, but I’m not at all certain that I would be. If I behave in a helpful, generous way toward another, am I motivated by a true, caring concern for him, or is my intent to receive his praise and gratitude; or to incur a sense of obligation on his part? I know how I want to think of myself, but do I honestly know my own motives?

Is it even possible to know oneself? It is surely an important question if I want to be the person that I aspire to be, because I need to know my worst weaknesses in order to improve myself. I could ask someone else how he perceives me, but that would be an unreliable source of accurate information for obvious reasons. His opinion of anyone depends on his own preferences, and he may have any number of ulterior motives for criticizing me or for flattering me.

One approach that I could take to learn more about myself would be to take the Meyers – Briggs personality test. This test, by analyzing our preferences, assesses our personality along four lines of distinction. (For example: whether we are more introverted or more extraverted.) The Meyers-Briggs test is based loosely on the work of Carl Jung on personality types. Jung also analyzed the various aspects, or complexes, of the individual personality (Ego, Persona, etc.). So, one step I can take in getting to know myself is to learn to recognize these components of my psyche. There is not uniform agreement among psychoanalysts as to the exact definition of each one. So, I'm going to define them the way that I recognize them.

First, the Persona is the face, or mask, that we present to the public. It may be a relatively accurate representation of the inner person, or it may be just the opposite. At a workplace gathering one might present an affable, even flattering, face to his supervisors while harboring an inner loathing and resentment toward them.

In contrast to the Persona is the Self, the component that processes the inputs from various sources and makes decisions based on its goals. The term Self is a bit confusing because there is another complex termed the Higher Self.

Another complex, the Ego (from the Greek word for “I”), is the part that emphasizes the “I” as distinct from other individuals. It is the opposite of team spirit, or a feeling of brotherhood. It is not usually satisfied with thinking, “I'm different from him in this way or that”. It would like to think, “I'm better than he is in this way or that”.

Then there is part of the personality that is devoted to satisfying the needs and desires of the body; so it could be considered to be the animal aspect of the personality. It corresponds roughly to Jung's complex “The Shadow”, and to Freud's concept of “The Id”. Both Jung and Freud felt that this part of the personality was largely suppressed - hidden from the conscious mind, perhaps out of a sense of shame. Freud, especially, was almost obsessed with the effects of repressed sexuality – which was probably a concern in his day.

The “Higher Self” is called “The Superego” in Freudian psychology, but that term is easily misinterpreted to mean, “very strong version of the ego”. It is often considered to be that part of the personality that fosters the highest attributes: love, sympathy, nobility, self-sacrifice, heroism, etc. But when one becomes more familiar with this entity, he/she is found to be more of a teacher and guide (and even something of a nag), that strives to lead the individual upward into becoming a higher kind of being.

The Anime, as Jung defined it, is the suppressed feminine aspect within a man; or at least that part of his personality that harbors those traits that are usually associated with women. The corresponding part of a woman's personality is The Animus.

But definitions are not often the best way to explain concepts that are, by their nature, somewhat fuzzy. So, I'm going to devote a separate post to each of these complexes in order to demonstrate how they function in specific social situations. Then we will take up the problem of how to identify within ourselves, and learn how to make the best use of them.

Both Jung and Freud found that our behavior is often determined by factors that are hidden in the subconscious, and are, for various reasons, not fully recognized by the conscious mind. The fact that these subconscious desires and needs are not recognized often leads to psychological, and even physical problems; or at least a general feeling of unease and discontent.

There is a Biblical proverb (Prov. 23:7) that states: “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he”. I understand that by “in his heart”, he means, “at the deep subconscious level”, including that part that we suppress from our conscious minds. This interpretation is in accordance with the findings of both Freud and Jung, although the two of them proceeded in different directions in exploring the subconscious and interpreting its messages.

Jung attempted several techniques for opening the subconscious mind to the conscious, but he eventually concluded that the best and safest way is through analyzing one's dreams, and Freud also used this technique.

Analyzing one’s dreams is, in many respects, the best way to explore one’s own subconscious mind, but it is not an easy undertaking. Everyone dreams, generally several times each night, but most of us rarely remember the dreams. Even when we do remember them, they usually don’t convey any meaning to us.

All of this requires dedication, but making sense of the dreams may require even more effort. Dreams speak in their own language, which is the language of symbols, and they give us clear messages once we learn that language. Jung found that there are several categories of dreams: those that are universal in interpretation, such as sun, moon, stars, the infant prodigy; those that are common to a culture, such as airplanes and skyscrapers; and those that are personal, that is those that use one’s individual interests, activities and relationships as symbols. Serious books on dream interpretation help us with the first two categories, and they can offer some guidance in uncovering the meanings of our personal symbols. Some that I have found helpful are: Man and His Symbols, by Carl Jung; Dreams, Your Magic Mirror, by Elsie Sechrist; The Understanding of Dreams, by Raymond De Becker; Dream Dictionary, by Tony Crisp; The Magic, Magical, Marvelous World of Dreams, by Wilda Tanner, and online compilations, like DreamMoods. It is important to have a variety of sources because dreams generate a huge number of symbols, and no one source covers them all. Also one author may have an insight into a particular symbol viewpoint that others do grasp, but that provides just the right clue to break the code of the dream and reveal its message.

Return to table of contents for this label:

Table of Contents for Psychology Label (augustmarsblog.blogspot.com)