Together-Whenever-Wherever Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 In his book, Self-Therapy, Jay Earley asserts that parts, or subpersonalities, are real. Here's the quote: You may treat the idea of subpersonalities as simply a useful metaphor for viewing the psyche, which it is, but it is much more than that. If you treat the components of your psyche as real entities that you can interact with, they will respond to you in that way, which gives you tremendous power for transformation. Are they actually real? I believe so, but I invite you to read this book, do the exercises, and make up your own mind. I accept IFS parts as a conceptual metaphor for identifying psychological subcategories, but I get confused when I start to consider the actual reality of such things. Can someone help me see the validity of his claim? I believe this issue dives deep into topics of ontology and epistemology, but I lack the philosophical chops to argue for or against with a sufficient degree of certainty. Here are some of my questions: How do we know personalities exist?Externally, we can observe a map of brain activity and the output of human behavior, but can we observe personalities? Internally, we can observe our own thoughts, memories, and emotional states, but can we observe our personality?Isn't personality a grouping merely, composed by real instances of thoughts, emotions, and behavior? e.g. A forest isn't real, trees are real, shrubs are real, soil is real. A fleet isn't real, ships are real, sailors are real, docks are real.How could I use perception to observe a personality. How would I hear, see, touch, taste, smell a personality? Book link: https://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-Step-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 You should be worrying about neurology and neuroanatomy, not ontology and epistemology. For example, have you heard or seen information about people who have had their brains separated in the middle, leaving the left and the right brain independent from each other? Each brain develops its own personality and consciousness separate from the other hemisphere. If there are other personalities in your brain, they would have to be associated with a function similar to that, where each brain has its own processing network, but can meet in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Together-Whenever-Wherever Posted January 21, 2017 Author Share Posted January 21, 2017 You should be worrying about neurology and neuroanatomy, not ontology and epistemology. For example, have you heard or seen information about people who have had their brains separated in the middle, leaving the left and the right brain independent from each other? Each brain develops its own personality and consciousness separate from the other hemisphere. If there are other personalities in your brain, they would have to be associated with a function similar to that, where each brain has its own processing network, but can meet in the middle. How could this prove personalities are real? Going back to the forest/trees example: Say there's an instance where Forest A of 500,000 trees is divided in two by freeways and urban development, and becomes, as a result, Forest B of 100,000 trees and Forest C of 200,000 trees. Does this instance prove that the conceptual grouping known as forests are real? We're still talking about trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Torbald Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 How could this prove personalities are real? Going back to the forest/trees example: Say there's an instance where Forest A of 500,000 trees is divided in two by freeways and urban development, and becomes, as a result, Forest B of 100,000 trees and Forest C of 200,000 trees. Does this instance prove that the conceptual grouping known as forests are real? We're still talking about trees. By real, I mean - not an illussion. The trees and the concept for forest that envelops them, are real material things. The brain is the real material thing, and thoughts are physical events, -real- events in the brain. Thoughts and emotions are defined by neural networks. Every thought you have can be looked in a scan and you can see individual parts of the brain dealing with them. A "personality" is those networks acting in concert together. The brain isn't one single group like a forest of the same trees. It's a diverse ecosystem, and even though the two halves look similar, each side operates differently and has specialized functions. For example, typically only the left hemisphere has language centers, so when a split brain person speaks, only the left brain does. In order to communicate with the right brain, signs and words (that they can read, but not speak) are used. I think the difficulty you're having is still that you are too philosophical, and not scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 The mind is a real material thing, to be real "it"(freewill/frontal cortex) has to interact with something, can "it" talk to itself, to reflect on experience real or imagined, yes I think it does, subconsciously and occasionally consciously, try not to fill it with assholes. To accept freewill, to think inside the box(The only thinking possible) is to accept reality, your reality. To think outside the box is madness,God ,a child or perhaps an interesting thought experiment. While freewill remains there is work to be done. A forest/Jungle is never just a forest is "it", "it's" always your forest, their forest, a boreal forest, a collection of trees; but never a collection of fungi. An army/navy/fleet is never just an army "it's" always my army, the generals army, the people's army, the salvation army..... In short it is a hierarchical construct, would you accept that I have an Army of ants or a forest? Government. Illusion. "I am from the Government/State and I'm here to help you". I think that hierarchical constructs while illusory are useful from a biological survival standpoint and an organisational planning standpoint. Within the body perhaps there could be said to be a hierarchy in the brain, the newer frontal cortex moderating or not the more baser instincts and parts. Welcome to the Jungle. Jay Earley, I'll probably check the guy's work out. Found imo an interesting Indian philosopher guy on Youtube "Krishamurti" typing "Self-Knowledge" into Youtube, was a bit slow at first but I did I find the guy brought immense clarity in just a few videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper_Heart Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 >I accept IFS parts as a conceptual metaphor for identifying psychological subcategories, but I get confused when I start to consider the actual reality of such things. Can someone help me see the validity of his claim? I believe this issue dives deep into topics of ontology and epistemology, but I lack the philosophical chops to argue for or against with a sufficient degree of certainty. I had little to add to this except that there are apparently different circuits in the brain that can fire many at the same time. Some of them can conflict with others. http://www.coherencetherapy.org/files/Unlocking_the_Emotional_Brain-Ch1.pdfThose guys have made/use a neurological research about how psychological change works. It's a peer reviewed, scientifically proved study and they say that IFS works. Page 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts