How We Keep Our Internal Workings Secret and The Question of True Self

[martinprogrammer]

Something inspired by today's Whatsapp conversation.

The instinct to protect our inner self is to be expected. The dichotomy between the relaxed, authentic self that is "comfortable-in-our-skin" and choreographed, armoured self is a reflection of the roles we play and the environment we navigate.

The question of purpose is central to understanding why we oscillate between these states of being.

One analogy to use would be a crab with or without its exoskeleton. What's pretty obvious is that the unprotected crab exposes its inner workings to the world and its internals are existential. The crab "in corpore" is all there, but the crab in the world is hardly functional.

The crab without exoskeleton is a totally different creature in the world. It must profoundly change its priorities and temporarily adapt its awareness of itself and the world in order to address this vulnerability.

One may say that its identity as a species is formed with the exoskeleton being present. It sets clear boundaries between the crab and its environment, so without the boundary - Is the naked crab more of a crab as it interacts with the world directly or less of a crab?

What also becomes apparent is that the armorless crab stops being capable of action. It can't offend or defend itself. It cannot mate, it cannot compete, it can't dig...

So this "external" self is what interacts with the world and defines its purpose! But the internal self is what the external self is based on. The internal self totally controls its exterior. This exterior is at the same time a cut-down and an augmented version.

Returning to humans, the vulnerability of the inner self needs to be seen in the light of the dangers and consequences.

So, what is our inner self shielding itself from? Are we under-protecting or over-protecting and in relation to which exact threat? What is the opportunity cost of our protective behaviour?

The interaction and the directionality between inner self and the externally facing selves is interesting. Does the "boundary" also act as a filter? Does the externality have agency over what it passes to the inner self?

Persona is one of the terms used to refer to a person as it presents itself to the world and tainted by societal norms.

Persona is a Latin word for a mask worn by actors in theatres. It implies that what we show to the world can vary fundamentally to what we actually represent intrinsically. At best, our Persona is a layer that filters, moderates and interfaces the outside with the inside.

Referring to values, their embodiment cannot be done without referencing which self is embodying and whether that's done explicitly or implicitly. The disconnect between words and deeds can sometimes be very obvious, but also present itself as the spiral of silence.

Then we have collective selves and the question is - do the collectives selves have a greater mandate to the individual selves or to the collective?

What sort of awareness does a collective have with regards to the transparency and conformity of the individual selves to the collective?

Finally, what sort of agreement and what type of facilitation could lead to the revelation of individual selves - opening up vulnerability, establishing trust, increasing intimacy and lead to love?

[JonahWilberg]

Thanks Martin, I think there are some great questions here, particularly the last ones. I think the last one in particular is bound up with ideas around deliberately developmental spaces, and in particular I would gesture again at authentic relating practices, which have been designed for these purposes.

And I think the awareness you mention, of the transparency and conformity of individual selves to the collective, could be seen as a key skill on a developmental pathway of social and emotional development.

The question you raise about the mandate of collective selves is an interesting one - when you say 'mandate to individual selves' do you mean all the selves in the collective, or in the individual who has the the collective self? If it's the first I'd suggest there is an equal mandate for both, as they are mutually interdependent. If it's the second, I'd suggest that the collective self by definition is concerned with the collective.

I'm curious to hear how you would start to answer these questions though?

[martinprogrammer]

Thanks Jonah for your comment.
My main idea here is to explore the importance of recognising that there's a dance between the internal self and the external one.
I feel that currently the internal self is being treated as a (very) personal self that stays behind the scrutiny and consideration. The only self that one is being measured by is the external self (that one uses to interact with the world).

Values embodied only by the external selves are not as deeply rooted, maybe, as the ones that are internally embodied.
The collective self may not be as invested into the collective because the mandate that it has to its internal self (due to various defensive needs) takes precedence.

I then used the crab analogy to show that the internal self is protected for a reason. The internal self is existential.
At the same time - this protection comes at a cost - that should be analysed.

Then, I propose an investigation into the rationality of the contemporary need of keeping the internal self (so) independent of the expressed selves and assessing how different needs that led to this dichotomy can be met outside of the context of bounded selves.

By addressing the issues around psychological safety and physical safety....

I feel this might be valuable for DDSs, so just offering it for consideration.