Thomas Walker13 said:I just finished a book by DeMell regarding this "self" thing... I think... according to him, you could be a pencil instead of a person and still have a "self," but he didn't really define it. It seems like he doesn't have a clue either. I've read Tolle too... "The Power of Now"... and he tries to explain the "self" through this state of being in the "now," where you stop overthinking, though that eventually turns into a kind of general numbness over time. From what I gather, you have the option to either contemplate the "self" or simply *be* the "self," which can be useful, but you could also end up losing your mind depending on how you handle it. Or, you can just stop thinking and simply observe the "self"... like a bystander... or a dog watching its own brain (per Tolle). I'm not sure how to approach this. It's a massive shift, and you can easily lose your way and mess up your life either way.😁
Honestly, I think you're setting yourself up for trouble if you have thousands of thoughts racing through your head every single day—constantly ruminating, rushing around, getting irritated by everything, and living in this perpetual state of dissatisfaction because of all those destructive thoughts.
When you start thinking less and observing the world—and yourself—more, paying attention to your actions and the thoughts that drift in, you become more self-aware. Your brain actually functions better that way; it isn't cluttered with thousands of useless distractions, so when you actually need to engage for something productive, it performs much more effectively than usual.
The goal is to understand our own actions—to figure out why we did something specific, what triggered us, what the underlying motive was—basically, to investigate ourselves and improve. But you can only achieve that through self-observation; essentially, if your higher self is monitoring your thoughts, you reach a higher state of consciousness.
Thoughts aren't capable of understanding themselves—they just arrive and depart. There needs to be a higher self acting as the controller, stepping in to neutralize the bad ones while letting the good, useful ones stay.
Patrick Wright2 said:Man, anything can flip upside down from sunrise to sunset... So you’re saying the reason we can't stick to our own damn decisions is because different versions of ourselves are pulling the strings... Take me for example, I made this big move to just eat two meals a day, but then half the time I end up crushing a third one anyway, and it’s definitely not because I'm actually hungry—it’s more like some other version of me fought for that extra plate and won. Wild stuff....
We aren't talking about basic physiological needs here—food, water, sleep, and so on. Obviously, you'll eat if you're hungry or sleep if you're tired—and sure, if you possess enough willpower, you might manage to be consistent, since willpower is just one specific personality trait. This isn't about being inconsistent; it's about the deep-seated habits, beliefs, and attitudes we've picked up through our upbringing and the influence of the society around us. All of those elements coalesce into our personality, and they're constantly at war with one another.
Look at smoking: you know it's bad for you, and one part of you wants to quit, but another part refuses to let go—so you end up in an internal tug-of-war. That's a habit people can overcome through sheer force of will if they're truly committed, though these days, the trend is to turn to hypnosis to simply wipe away—or whatever you want to call it—that specific part of us.
Yeah, that’s actually something the Russian metaphysician Gurdjieff used to talk about. I honestly think there's some truth to it—it's something we all deal with, really. We aren't just one solid thing; we're made up of all these different fragments that make up our personality and ego, constantly shifting and changing throughout our entire lives.
Patrick Wright2 said:The only thing that stays constant is change itself.
Look, aiko, all this stuff you're talking about is pretty interesting, but you haven't actually proven that a Higher Self even exists. All you've done is say it wouldn't be weird if it did exist and then laid out some arguments about what its function would be if it were real.
If I actually managed to prove the existence of a Universal Self, I'm pretty sure I'd be looking at a Nobel prize.😁
I have my doubts about whether it can even be proven—our consciousness is just too limited to grasp it. Who knows, maybe one day science will pull us closer to an answer, especially since there are hints that human consciousness is slowly waking up, or rather, expanding.
In my view, anyone looking for real answers needs to do some inner work, because I suspect the truth is buried within ourselves. Science hasn't even cracked the code on most things regarding our own bodies yet; there is still so much we don't understand, particularly when it comes to how the brain actually functions.
Even though I haven't proven the existence of a Universal Self—which isn't even the point of this thread—I hope I've shed enough light on the concept to answer the question of what the "Self" actually is.
Patrick Wright2 said:Look, I’m just not the type of guy who can sit here and start throwing definitions around if I don't have some actual, hard evidence to back them up.
On Earth, we measure time based on the Sun—a day lasts 24 hours because that’s how much "time" it takes for the Sun to return to the same spot in our sky, which is pretty self-explanatory. When the Earth completes one full orbit around the Sun, we call that a year.
The Moon works similarly; we say a month has passed because the Moon is "full" again, just as it was a certain amount of time ago—basically, these are just cycles we use as benchmarks for measuring time.
Now, imagine you're out in Space where you can't see the Sun or the Moon—just total, absolute darkness. You don't even have a watch on your wrist. Tell me, how would you actually know what time it is, or how much "time" has elapsed?
Time was essentially an invention by humans for practical reasons, derived from the movements of celestial bodies.
Since we live in such a structured Universe, it’s natural to assume that time "passes"—that it flows linearly from a beginning toward an end. But to be more precise, everything happens in cycles; the end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end. It’s like trying to point to the exact start or finish of a circle you're looking at. I realize that sounds like a paradox, and perhaps our brains simply aren't programmed to process or grasp that concept—which is why we might need some sort of "Higher Self" to provide the answers to those kinds of questions.
The "Self" has always existed—forever, really. It doesn't actually live within the constraints of time, because time itself is nothing more than an illusion we've been conditioned to accept.
Think of it this way: imagine the "Self" is the user operating a computer. When the hardware eventually crashes or dies, the user simply goes out and buys a new machine. In this sense, the "Self" remains constant, while the ego—that smaller, fleeting version of us—is what changes throughout a lifetime. The ego has a shelf life, sure, but its experiences don't just vanish into thin air; they get integrated back into the core "Self."
I’ve always looked at it this way—when we’re born, the brain is essentially just an underdeveloped operating system, barely capable of handling the most basic functions. As we grow up, we start downloading all these additional programs through our upbringing—stuff that eventually hardens into our ego and our distinct personalities. It’s basically what we acquire from being raised by the world around us.
The real question, though—and it’s a heavy one—is who actually wrote the initial code, who hit the "start" button, and what exactly is their end goal for the whole system?🤷
Yeah, you’ve got a point there—the subconscious isn't really our "ego." It's more like the ROM of the system, where everything is permanently etched in, whereas our conscious mind acts like the RAM.
So, if we're following that logic, the ego would be this collection of memory split between those RAM and ROM components, layered with all the other software—our personality, our convictions, our biases—all running on the physical hardware of our bodies.😁
In that sense, the "small self" is just the combination of hardware and software, while the "true self"—the big picture—is essentially the user operating the computer.🤔
The ego is indeed me—you’re spot on there. Every person possesses an ego, a sort of "small self," which is actually a necessity for navigating this material existence we find ourselves in. Think of it as a limited consciousness—the version of us currently operating in the physical realm—and our whole life's work is essentially trying to expand that awareness. Why it works that way? Honestly, I haven't a clue.
Then there's the "Great Self"—that divine spark within us that represents who we truly are at our core, the part of us that returns home after death.
I’d argue it’s possible to tap into that "Great Self" if we can just stay present in the here and now—if we can manage to quiet the mental noise. In fact, I suspect our subconscious might actually be that "Great Self" in disguise.
That divine spark within us—whether you call it the Spirit, God, the Force, a Being, or the Creator of all existence—is our true essence. It is the observer. It only switches on when the mental chatter stops—when there’s no more overthinking, no endless analyzing, and none of that noise our mind produces to create this false version of ourselves.
Thoughts are pretty much useless unless they're laser-focused. It’s like trying to tackle a complex project at work but your mind keeps drifting to what you want for dinner or some random argument from three years ago; you just can't get anything done. But if you actually lock in and focus solely on the task, you succeed. So, the mind is only a tool when it's disciplined—otherwise, it's just a chaotic mess of distractions that makes us anxious and pulls us away from who we actually are.
Whenever I manage to steady that flow of thoughts and gain some control, I feel this profound sense of bliss and peace. It’s because I’m finally inhabiting that Being—I become my true self, no longer lost in an infinite loop of mental static. That’s where real contentment lives. When a thought inevitably pops up, the trick is to just watch it pass by. You observe its origin, but you have to resist the urge to start debating it or dwelling on it; once you start ruminating, you've fallen right back into the trap of the mind.
At the end of the day, the "I" isn't our thoughts, it isn't our body, and it certainly isn't anything material or tied to the physical world. The "I" is timeless and omnipresent—it’s the thing that exists within everything and everywhere, a small fragment of the Creator of all things.
Honesty isn't just some social rule—it’s a psychological framework that manifests through actions that simply don't harm others. It stems from deep within a person's core. On the flip side, a lack of honesty is really just a byproduct of one's persona—that ego shaped by upbringing and societal pressure. If you were raised in an environment where cutting corners was the norm, or if you were born into a culture that rewards deceit, there's a high probability you'll end up being dishonest yourself; it becomes your version of "normal" because you haven't been taught any other way. Still, even then, there's usually that nagging voice of conscience—that internal compass—warning you that you're off track and that this state of being feels unnatural. Trying to correct that course is a massive, uphill battle. Conversely, if someone is raised with a genuine sense of integrity, their outward personality aligns with that inner core. Even if they slip up occasionally, that inner voice is quick to pull them back toward the right path.