No One is ever really themselfs ( including you)..

i used to read tons of osho

 

pretty much the people who are "themselves" then are isolates.... but when you look at them, is it that great? why not have influences that make you who you are. your still your self. but you are a random compilation of things taught to you. its like saying because you get your genes from your mom and dad they're not really your genes...

 

is that ice?

 

Than your 1 much bigger step closer to Freedom!

 

ahhhh. Good point but they still would have been influenced by the animals. therefore they are still not themselves

 

the self you mean is the ego. I've come to be thinking the only self that I consider my true self, is what many people call the infinite self, in it's greater presence our behavior and feelings even are influenced by that instead of what you speak of.

In that sense, I completely agree with you. Good post. I was actually just recently reading some magaizing article about the mind and behavior. We most definitely, even in a psychiatric sense, mimic others. Over the past year I was introduced to the term imitation crab. At first I attributed it to some tool's un original behavior but the more I thelt about it and paid attention to my own self, much of my life as sociable person is unoriginal. It may be different, for everybody, in so many slight ways, generally we are connected in various aspects and are some kind of unique mash up of such aspects.

 

I would like to add, that even though what you speak of is the ego, you are right on even deeper layers of our self and soul. Infact the deeper, the less unique. So, I disagree with you in the sense that we are not being our true selves. That is our true selves.

Individuality, may be the mash up of those aspects. Various bends, mixes, volumes, balances, excesses. I think much of it is a constant choice, we think, feel, theel and I've thelt myself at every bend and corner. Individuality is not a word I'd like to use because to many it implies complete difference from others. That is just not actualistic.

 

TheDope, I found your post, I like it a lot. As a sort of reference to that fearful thought. However, much emphasis is placed on the ego, and the most slutty aspects of our "social behavior."

I don't know about life, or yourself, without ego. That is a major point of discussion between many, "can we live without it?" I used to think we can, but I was in that time actually letting something get out of hand. Now I don't think we can't, I just don't know. Everyone close to my heart that I have discussed it with are most certain the ego is a necessary aspect of learning ourselves and not necessarily something you can completely overcome.

There is unwavering energy and confidence in the moment, wbere we respect the joy of others because of the truthfulness in our own joy.

 

I don't think you can say that someone's not 'being themselves' simply because they exhibit behaviours or traits that have been passed on to them by others. If the definitive criterion for individuality and the sense of self was doing something completely original, then you'd be left with, say, maybe a few hundred or thousand people in the entire course of history who accomplished 'being themselves'. My parents taught me how to feed, clothe, and care for myself. Does that mean that by carrying out those actions, I'm just acting and not being myself? If it does, then being myself seem like a pretty redundant thing to accomplish.
If, however, the implication as that the behaviours and traits we that are imparted onto us from a young age are somehow counter-intuitive, I can see more validity in this, purely in the sense of deviation from instinctive behaviour. But of course, that sparks an entirely new debate about what we can actually define as instinct, and whether anyone can really differentiate it from a well ingrained behavioural pattern. It goes back to Freud's writings on the ego and the id, which if you think about it can actually sum this up pretty nicely; both social consciousness and instinctive behaviour are obliged to succumb to one another, depending on the circumstances. Ultimately, in terms of the op's argument, it does mean that nobody is really 'themselves', at least not all of the time, assuming being oneself means acting purely on the impulses of the id. However, this is not an entirely negative thing, as, despite the ego inducing such qualities as excessive vanity, constant need for affirmation from others, feelings of low self worth, etc etc, it also encourages development of a social conscience and the incentive for people to better themselves.
In short, there's no point in achieving this ultimate state of being yourself if the self that you're gonna be is a compassionless sociopath.

 

Freud was just as correct as anyone who speculates the complete and true nature of the self.

 

Wow, just think about it. If you could really be yourself at any given time on any given day, who would you fuck, who would you lie to. who you you give to, or take from... the world would surely be more kaotic than it alread is. Even if that would be true naked human nature, the world could not handle it.

 

We need and have the ability to make distinctions. To be able to tell one thing from another. We do not need to use our power to make distinctions for arbitrary assessments, this is vain.

 

What of those who do not speculate but rather come to know.

 

Well you can't speculate on the one thing you can come to know. The rest is totally up in the air.

Edited to add...........

My words are most definitely confused.

I guess by complete and true nature of the self, I guess I was referring to the self in question in the OP as if it were something actually capable of being processed down into true workings. We can at least identify some bullshit though.


....The complete and untrue nature of your self identification

 

and Okay.

 

"Self" is the story that we make up about ourselves in our heads. Who we truly are is that underlying consciousness that we can only find without thought (through just being aware of the chronic "me story" thought patterns that all us humans have, and therefore making the distinction). Just my humble opinion I 'spose. I make it sound so easy to do lol but it's actually quite hard to reach that level of inner stillness.

 

we may imitate and learn from others, but no two people are going to take the exact same opinions or preferences. not even identical twins, for instance, act the exact same, like the same foods and dislike the same foods, etc. so, i must refute the OPs argument. sure, we borrow ideas and learn from others, but we each have our own specific and unique quirks and habits.

 

Agreed, both sides of this facet need to be expressed, what is borrowed and what is original. A sweet harmonious balance.

 

Meh. We are a combination of the genetics we're born with and the sum of the events and interactions we've had throughout our entire lives. You swap someone else with me and while there'd be a lot of similarities and there would be many differences as well. Just because we are all influenced by others and change ourselves based on those interactions doesn't make us any less ourselves. We change ourselves every day of our lives. Genetics are merely a canvas.