5 Answers

  1. This may be perceived as strange or funny , but the answer that Natalia Dudkina and Music Yes have already given is completely correct.

    As usual: to discuss something, you must first agree on definitions. – But you are actually asking: what is the correct definition of “I”, “personality”?

    But there is no” correct ” definition generally accepted in psychology.

    Under different perspectives of the system view, under different ways and tasks of work, the understanding of what “I”, “personality” is will be very different in different approaches.

    In the classic, completely condovogo behavioral approach, what the thinker thinks is generally unimportant, insignificant. Because the stimulus is a reaction, and no fucking way.

    But, what is funny, and a purely cognitive approach, which focuses on everything that is connected with the process of thinking, also somehow “did not go” into practice.

    But their mix, the cognitive-behavioral approach, was used to solve practical problems of clients , and in commercial terms, just with a bang.

    Not only that! Here is a gestalt approach that directly took from Buddhism the very thing that Music Yes writes about. There is just what is usually called a person, marked with the word self. So this crap, according to the model-the belief of gestalt therapists, really-does not exist steadily, but always occurs at the border of contact… Oh, hold me seven… not contact with other people, or the bear there, or even the Apple Itself , but on the border of contact with your need. Here. – Well, this self consists of the actual “personality” – Personality-stable ideas about yourself, Ida – everything bodily, sensational, and Ego-also not what you thought, but – the “function of choice”.

    I'm here for this excursion into the gestalt approach. Very interesting, fruitful, but it seems to be a complete plague. “But figs! The cognitive-behavioral approach, on its next wave, happily discovered “mindfulness“, in the sense of a bicycle, – the description of this practice confusingly coincides exactly with the plague that, in fact, gestalt therapists are engaged in.

    That is, if we are materialists, and we are close to Lenin's definition from “Materialism and empirio-criticism “about” the criterion of truth-practice ” … – Then a very natural, logical development of practical psychology, psychotherapy just leads to the answer to your question. Only consciousness in the sense of thinking is not enough to take into account in order to effectively influence yourself and others. It seems that the “I” is still more than just thoughts in words (and images, too)).

    There is a special word that describes such crap: “holism”, “holistic approaches” – this is about taking into account just the whole set. Thinking, emotions, physicality, and social interactions. – There was a word in the 90s and early 2000s, but then it somehow went out of fashion. But the point is, yes, this one.

    Well, what else… That there is a component of the psyche that strongly influences decisions and behavior, in addition to “thoughts in words”, consciousness, too constantly, psychologists of different approaches have discovered over and over again, throughout the history of psychology. From William James, who wrote about the “fringe”, “periphery”, to Freudians with their bes -, pre -, sub – conscious, Jungians with all sorts of Shadows-Anima-Animus, etc., to cognitive scientists (!) with their “automatic thoughts”, etc., etc.

    I'll end with the quote that came to mind first in response to your question. Roberto Assaj (i)oli, author of another freaky, beautiful, fruitful approach: “psychosynthesis”, who developed the concept of “subpersonalities”. Not exact, the meaning is important:

    “I have a body, but I am not this body.

    – I feel some emotions, but I am not these emotions.

    “I have a mind, but I am not my mind.

    Then Assagioli goes on to write his version of the plague: “I am the center of absolute self-consciousness, I am the center of will, able to observe and control all psychological processes and my body, as well as control them.” The center of absolute self-awareness is his concept, which is not close to me, but the first three lines are a song!)

  2. The answer to your question depends on what concept you use to know yourself. There is no consensus in psychology about what the Self is , which means that you will not get a clear answer from anyone about whether to put an equal sign between your thoughts and your Self.

    But you can choose the concept that will help you solve the issues that are bothering you.

    For example, if you regularly have violent, malicious thoughts that you want to harm someone , you can turn to Jung's idea of the Shadow and the Persona. From it, you will learn that what you used to consider your Self is a Person, and all thoughts that do not correspond to your Self are pushed into the Shadow.

    If you feel that you have lost your Self, you can turn to self-psychology and read about what is our true Self, what is the narcissistic Grandiose and Insignificant Self, and how we alienate our own experiences.

    And so on for any problem. Psychology has a lot to offer 🙂

  3. When answering this question, I focus only on my own Personal understanding of this process. Answer: Thoughts-Thinking is one of the main numerous components of your Self, Personality-uniqueness, individuality, uniqueness. Without Thought-Thinking, you would be a kind of “biorobot” controlled by a specific program. But You are a Human Being, and you also have a very complex, immensely unique program laid down in you, which you can, and in fact should, must be able to manage through Thought-Thinking. I thought about it, made a decision, did it or didn't do it – it all depends on you Personally. You're a Human Being ! This is just my personal opinion and that's all. I sincerely wish you Health, Love, Happiness and all the best. And make (at least try to make) only correct-deliberate, positive decisions to produce only positive-Kind actions or omissions. And always remain Human in the “broad” – positive sense of this definition. Good luck to you ! Peace To Our Home ! To the Human House !

  4. There are many answers to this question. For example, Buddhists believe that no Self exists in the usual sense for us.�

    “It was by virtue of the principle of anatman that the Buddha tirelessly urged his disciples to reject delusions about themselves, illusions about the self as ignorance of their own nature. The sense of “I “and the resulting attachment to” I ” is the source of all the other attachments, passions, and drives that drag the living entity into the mire of samsara.”

    The” I ” in Buddhism is not a constant quantity, but a flow. The flow of thoughts, feelings, emotions, and actions.�

    Personally, this idea seems very reasonable to me, but there are other views on this issue that are also very interesting.

  5. Thoughts do not exist, but they can appear when we pay attention (energy) to it and then they take on a subtly material form. But initially they do not exist, they come to us through the prism of our self, our feelings, emotions. That is, there is consciousness, absolutely without thoughts. Only the self can create thoughts, but I am also a thought. Find a way to throw it away, but don't believe anything that will happen and you may be lucky enough to see the world in a new way. Unfortunately, staying in pure consciousness all the time is impossible.

Leave a Reply