Self knowledge excellence

[Tony Crowe]

Do you think there is such a thing as excellence in self knowledge? If so, how would someone know when they have achieved it? If not, why not?

 

-TC

[Lens]

You can excel in fields where you can compare yourself to others on objective and agreed upon standards like running 1000m and arriving first then you are declared the winner this would not mean you are morally better than those who arrived 2nd 3rd etc. Self knowledge is subjective because it is a personal endeavour coming from a personal need to achieve more peace, good self-esteem and freedom and also to know what you want to do in life despite other’s criticism or lack of support internal or external. So excellence in self knowledge would be in my view a non sense it’s like saying I am better at loving chocolate than other people then I deserve a recognition. If you feel that you need to be better at self knowledge therefore you will always feel dependent on others to compare yourself with thinking that self knowledge is kind of a competition. When you enjoy knowing who you are generally you do not wanna care who is enjoying more or less than you. In my view running after excellence and recognition in present life is a way to deny the lack of love and lack of being praised in childhood it is an illusion of love. I prefer the word courage to the word excellence.

[DaviesMa]

Self knowledge is purely about having an explicit understanding about why you do things and therefore being able to make a fully informed choice.

 

When we make decisions our decision making process often uses the emotional part of the brain and only circles back to the logical part of the brain afterwards for justification. (This has been proven through brain scans.) This is the basis of rationalisation: we make a decision and then we make up reasons as to why that decision was correct. If we are unwilling to admit that we were wrong them our brain has to find ever more elaborate and sophisitc reasons to justify why we were correct. The bigger the emotional impact and the higher the investment in your position, the harder it is to wind in impulses and to apply logic during the decision making process.

 

If you have ever tried to argue with someone who is highly emotional and has never admits they are wrong, then introspection will only guarantee defeat. You can see therefore how this kind of thing would be useful in looking after ones own interests.

 

A lot of these strong emotions come from reactions to of past traumas. People for example may have been aggressive because their family was aggressive and this was the only way to get heard, or as a self defence mechanism because their people in their lives could not be reasoned with.

 

The less unresolved emotional trauma a person has, the more honest a person can be with him or herself as they are less subject to these seemingly random life threatening emotions. I also think it is important to not regard yourself as a servant of others so that you can truly examine your own desires without kidding yourself that you are being magnanimous or self sacrificing when you want to satisfy your own needs.

[MMX2010]

TheLastPsychiatrist wrote a long and thought-provoking article defining two contrary ways of acquiring self-knowledge.  The first involves introspection and therapy, while the second involves a series of competitive / cooperative relationships. 

 

If we accept that childhood traumas destroy our natural extroversion, (especially because Stefan portrays Isabella as so very extroverted and caring because he has never traumatized her), then any self-knowledge that relies solely (or even primarily) on introspection and therapy strikes me as potentially ineffective, (if not outright dangerous). 

 

TLP's essay is linked here, and it's the most beautiful thing I've ever read.

 

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html

 

 

The takeaway message is as follows, but the entire article is worth reading: 

 

How is it that centuries later, Tiresias's prophecy is still not understood?

Tiresias's prophecy was: He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.

Now, what could that mean?

Oh, he was right: Narcissus did live a long life-- though not a happy one.  He spent his life alone, dreaming, and gazing into a pool, waiting to die.

But Tiresisias's prophecy seems... wrong, counter to the Greek spirit, an affront to logic; shouldn't "knowing thyself" be the highest virtue?
 
He will have a long life, if he never knows himself.

But it's so simple, the explanation.  It's so simple that no one has ever thought of it, and the reason no one has thought of it is that it is too terrible to think about.

Forget about whether the prophecy is true.  Ask instead, "what would the parents have done once they heard it?"

When Laius and Jocasta were told that Oedipus would eventually destroy them, they pinned his ankles and abandoned him in the woods, ensuring that he'd someday have cause to do it.    And so when Narcissus's parents heard the requirements for their child's long life... they would have done everything possible to ensure that he didn't know himself.

No one knows what Liriope and Cephisus did, but whatever they did, it worked: he didn't even recognize his own reflection.  That's a man who doesn't know himself. That's a man who never had to look at himself from the outside.

How do you make a child know himself?  You surround him with mirrors. "This is what everyone else sees when you do what you do.  This is who everyone thinks you are."

You cause him to be tested: this is the kind of person you are, you are good at this but not that. This other person is better than you at this, but not better than you at that.  These are the limits by which you are defined.   Narcissus was never allowed to meet real danger, glory, struggle, honor, success, failure; only artificial versions manipulated by his parents.   He was never allowed to ask, "am I a coward?  Am I a fool?"  To ensure his boring longevity his parents wouldn't have wanted a definite answer in either direction. 

He was allowed to live in a world of speculation, of fantasy, of "someday" and "what if".   He never had to hear "too bad", "too little" and "too late." 

When you want a child to become something-- you first teach him how to master his impulses, how to live with frustration.  But when a temptation arose Narcissus's parents either let him have it or hid it from him so he wouldn't be tempted, so they wouldn't have to tell him no.  They didn't teach him how to resist temptation, how to deal with lack.  And they most certainly didn't teach him how NOT to want what he couldn't have.  They didn't teach him how to want.  
 

 

[MysterionMuffles]

You can measure excellence in self knowledge by taking a look at how people maintain themselves. Have they broken old patterns? Are they aware of when their ego's are attempting to take them over and interrupt it, or do they let it take over and just act out unconsciously? I don't think you can ever truly achieve excellence in self knowledge, rather the constant practice of introspection and self improvement--and the committment to it--is the excellence in itself. 

 

Self knowledge is basically learning what sets you off or gets you off.

 

We're all prone to error and frustration, but also seeking fulfillment and obtaining it, so there are a few levels of self knowledge you can go through when it comes to these two things. 

 

What Sets You Off

1. Acknowledging you have a trigger.
2. Identifying the thoughts when you're triggered.
3. Discovering where it came from. (Past experiences, trauma, external influences)
4. Accepting and acknowledging the feelings a certain trigger may give off.
5. Reasoning yourself into a better and more beneficial behaviour
6. Working on mitigating the reactionary behaviour that comes from certain triggers
7. Then finally no longer being triggered because you've grown too large for old habits that die hard

 

What Gets You Off

1. Accepting and acknowledging you have a desire or goal.
2. Discovering what's driving it and why it's important to you/the world.
3. Owning that you're the only person responsible for keeping yourself committed to your life's mission.
4. Making an action plan, either mentally or physically (through journaling, making a vision board, consulting professionals)
5. Getting 'er done!

That's what, I believe, can even begin to scratch the surface as to how one can even quantify their level of self knowledge.

[Dermot]

Thanks Rainbow Jamz. That is a great list

[MysterionMuffles]

Thank you, Dermot

[Matt D]

Do you think there is such a thing as excellence in self knowledge? If so, how would someone know when they have achieved it? If not, why not?

 

-TC

 

That is a really good question, Tony.

 

The purpose of knowledge of any kind is efficacy. We study engineering so that we can build a bridge without it falling down. At the same time you don't want to over-engineer because we it will cost way more than it should. Knowledge of physics, forces, loads are all important in order to get you close to that optimally designed bridge. If you have successfully applied your knowledge and you have demonstrated it by building 10 bridges which are still standing years after they were built then it's reasonable to say you have achieved excellence in your knowledge of structural engineering.

 

Ah - but, people like our friend Lens will say, self knowledge is subjective because we're all different and so what's excellent for one person may not be excellent for another. However, it's the 'in order to' which is objective just like the bridge building example. If I say: "I wanted my bridge to fall down" and it falls down, then studying engineering would be counter-productive. Similarly, if I say: "I want my relationships to fall apart and be a source of misery for me in the future." then self-knowledge is also counter-productive. It's only when you want positive relationships (especially with your spouse/children) of a higher emotional, intellectual, and psychological quality that you undergo the difficult task of studying yourself.

 

Yes there are different approaches to gaining self-knowledge. But you ultimately measure your progress by the quality of your relationships, the most important of them being the relationship with yourself. Therapy is partly introspective, but a lot of what occurs is learning to reforge a trusting relationship with an authority figure if you didn't have that growing up. Comparing yourself to other people is, I think, a necessary and healthy part of navigating the world. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your accomplishments, as long as it's not vain or self-indulgent. My good friend Kevin Beal as done a whole series called "Am I Growing" on Youtube. It's highly relevant to this conversation and worth watching.

 

Are you currently in or thinking of going to therapy, Tony?