I’ve been reading Multiplicity: the new science of personality by Rita Carter. I’m only part way through, so this isn’t a good representation of the book, just half an idea that struck as I was reading.
The basic thesis of the book is this: your character as an individual is not so ‘individual’ (ie indivisible) after all, but a collection of more-or-less complete sub-personalities. So if you say you did something ‘out of character’, really the ‘you’ speaking is just one of these subpersonalities, and a different one was acting.
Lots of people can be hypnotised into revealing different selves; many of us reveal different selves according to circumstances, such as a submissive spouse who’s also a dominant boss. As children, we might have an imaginary friend in whom we embody and try out alternative selves. People who take personality tests (such as MBTI) have apparently been shown to retest as the same personality from 20-60% of the time (presumably that ‘20-60′ represents the range of results from different studies, and yes, it startled me, too). However, tests of personality traits that get people to imagine themselves within a specific context while predicting their responses show much more consistent results.
Most of us are unaware of this – hence we act ‘out of character’ and say ‘I don’t know what came over me’. Some people, though, are ‘co-conscious’, aware of an inner ‘household’ of personalities, each with their own name, who converse and negotiate which should emerge to deal with different situations.
This seems to be a perfectly healthy, well-adjusted state – and it might help the rest of us to be a bit more aware of our multiplicity. Then, instead of beating myself up for ignoring the alarm clock I’d so determinedly set the night before, I’d be able to set up negotiations between ‘she who sets alarms’ and ‘she who sleeps in’, which might well be more useful.
Nowadays this all sounds remarkably weird, and maybe morally suspect: shouldn’t I take responsibility for what I do? Isn’t it important to be my one authentic self? But of course, our idea of the Self as something of such vital importance is an outgrowth of our culture. In a culture where the Self wasn’t such a big thing, like say ancient China, the idea of ‘co-consciousness’ might seem far more normal. Naturally I’m one person to my family and another in my work, because those are different roles. ‘I’ am at least as much my role or position within a structure as ‘I’ am some sacred unchanging individual – probably far more so.
And in such a culture, it might make a great deal of sense to have an oracle that reflected that kind of selfhood – one that could map out for you the different positions and relationships you occupy, each with their own motivations, undercurrents, connections, harmonies and disharmonies.
Of course, in a culture that believes in the individual, a frequently asked question about such an oracle would be, ‘How am I supposed to make sense of this answer when the different moving lines contradict one another?’
Carter argues that some awareness of how we split ourselves is healthy and necessary:
“If we are to swim in a disjointed and ever-changing world, we need more than ever to pull on our ability to see things from multiple viewpoints and to adopt different behaviours in different situations. As we hurtle from one encounter to another, the ‘self’ that we project has to be altered, if ever so slightly, for each one.”
Could be we know an oracle that might help with that.
That’s what originally led me to astrology, you can explore sub-personalities and see through transits and their positions what part of yourself will be used/challenged. (more-over aligning yourself with the flux off your own personal seasons).
In terms of the I Ching, how wonderful it is not to define yourself by your reactions but rather to seek advice on how best to change in order to stay on your path. Your path being what is essentially ‘you’.
When wisdom about humanity can be so old why is it frequently forgotten? Perhaps we’d really have nothing to do here on earth if we all rememebred all the time. Thanks again Hilary. (ps. I always get the same result for MBTI, differently worded tests too, but I’ve only done 3 so…)
doh, should be ‘of your own personal seasons’, not off…sorry
With this ‘layeredness’ thing, I wonder whether it isn’t just a matter of culture/ fashion. Big Christian and then Western contribution to the world: recognising the value of the unique individual. Wonderful in itself (well, I think so), but doesn’t make it easy to accept a multiple ‘self’ as anything other than pathology.
yes! well…. blame nietszche. In realtions personalities are interactive and catalytic. I find myself thinking, yes there is ‘me’ my desire, hidden adgendas, not so hidden adgendas etc. But there is also an interplay, mine with the other person and then with everyone and the whole human race. (The interplay has its own personality too)
Like a tree being shaped by the wind or position of the sun we are all in this atmospheric soup breathing the same air and being changed by it.
But how come we need an oracle… trees just adapt through their own kind of botanic instinct… why are our instincts not enough? I’m not even asking rhetorically, my instincts have gotten me into a lot of trouble in the past and using tools like yi have been key in my ability to grow.
Don’t know… to throw a completely different metaphor into the pot, I think we need an oracle to tune the receiver so we’re picking up real signals. (Is that sinking feeling an ‘instinct’ or some internalised, inherited pattern that has nothing to do with the reality?) Trees automatically come ready-tuned and stay on the station.
I think I over-cooked my metaphor.
” your character as an individual is not so ‘individual’ (ie indivisible) after all, but a collection of more-or-less complete sub-personalities.”
In some sense,this was the thesis of Psychiatrist Dr. Roberto Assagiolli. He spent his life developing it,was a friend of Jung. i have practiced it and it is helpful.
Roberto Assagioli – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assagioli’s life · Education · Psychosynthesis · Published works
Roberto Assagioli (Venice, February 27, 1888 – Capolona d’Arezzo, August 23, 1974) was an Italian psychiatrist and pioneer in the fields of humanistic and transpersonal …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Assagioli
Psychosynthesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Origins · Aims · Model of the person · Stages
Psychosynthesis is an approach to psychology that was developed by Roberto Assagioli, M.D. He compared psychosynthesis to the prevailing thinking of the day, …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PsychosynthesisPsychosynthesis – Welcome to two.not2
A comprehensive web site on psychosynthesis, with many first-rate articles, including a collection by Assagioli.
two.not2.org/psychosynthesisAAP – Association for the Advancement of Psychosynthesis
AAP – Association for the Advancement of Psychosynthesis, an organization to promote psychosynthesis, a transpersonal psychology that includes development of the will …
aap-psychosynthesis.org
Interesting – thanks!
have a look at my ‘blergue’ Reading Grandfather Lao, anent which the following:
Reading Grandfather Lao
http://grandfatherlao.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_grandfatherlao_archive.html
In his blog, Mike Dickman (translator, Paris) presents the Feng version of all 81 verses, with notes on other translations, and commentary by Wang Bi and Cheng Man-ch’ing, along with his own. Yum! Click through the Nov. ’05 to Jan. ’06 archives for successive pages.
“…what these texts are saying… is exactly the same thing: No matter what you want, the root of it lies in sorting out yourself first.”
That “self” is little more than the ephemeral vote of a number of sub-selves and perspectives isn’t a new idea. I don’t know how far back it goes, but Nietzsche explored it in some depth in the late 19th century. It’s plausible that Assagioli picked it up here, or through Nietzsche’s influence on psychology.
yunshou – sorting out yourself, or selves? 😉
Brad – you mean I didn’t just discover this? Well, rats. It is a good match for hexagram lines, though, isn’t it?
It is relevant that this is an I Ching forum and thus Taoism is in its orbit. Another facet of Taoism is Traditional Chinese Medicine. In fact, there are direct applications of I Ching to medicine. With respect I present that some of the subpersonalities derive from major internal organs such as the heart. This is a cultural universal. In one Bible verse,it is stated that “my reins (kidneys) pricked me at midnight.” This is conscience. “My heart melted with fear.” From the TCM perspective the correspondences are presented here:
What Are The Seven Emotions?
http://www.shen-nong.com › Home › Basic Principles – Block all http://www.shen-nong.com results
Suwen (The Book of Plain Questions) says “The five yin-organs of the human body … The emotions are considered the major internal causes of disease in TCM. … Anger, as described by TCM, covers the full range of associated emotions …
Nietzsche and Schopehauer have respect for Chinese Taoism and its major cultural treasures such as I Ching, as well as for Vedanta, the distillation of Vedic culture. Both I Ching and Vedanta have a clear understanding of (in the words of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes ) “As above,so below”.
Interesting connection! As of course lines of hexagrams can also be directly correlated with parts of the body. I wonder what a TCM practitioner would say about 52.3, for instance.
Hi again,
Yes, the multiple sub-personalities idea has been around for a long time, as has multiple personality disorder. Thanks to all your correspondents, there are plenty of references to follow up. My own reader-friendly recommendation would be the work of Louis Proto, particularly ‘Who’s Pulling Your Strings?’ [subtitled : How To Stop Being Manipulated By Your Own Personalities] published by Thorsons, 1989.
It always seemed to me that Robert Assagioli’s work -> Psychosynthesis was aimed as a response to Freudian Psychoanalysis (analysis = a loosening into parts for better(?) resolution). We are already fragmented and perhaps need to be put together better, with a happier understanding of what the whole could be.
My current view is that we have become more fragmented, both individually and socially, due to our ongoing failure to understand the implications of, at one level, the way the brain works, and at a ‘higher’ level, the more recent findings of depth psychology based on non-invasive experimentation.
This is worrying for all so-called traditional methods and ideologies and I tend to think we should suspend most of our present wilful initiatives based on old ideas until we get a bit more clarity (sic!). The I Ching? If you think it helps, carry on and it does seem to represent a paradigm that is not only capable of reflecting back to us different shades of ‘meaning’ we – as individuals – may find in a given situation, but is also close in some mysterious way to the dualistic nature of all experience. Fine for advice for the supreme head of a unified feudal clan, but I am not so sure that it was ever intended as, nor can be made to carry the weight of, significant help for a fractured, multiple-subperson modern ‘individual’.
Kindest regards,
David
HelloDavid;
Peace! and a prayer that you find the key to synthesizing the fragments you mention here:
“My current view is that we have become more fragmented, both individually and socially, due to our ongoing failure to understand the implications of, at one level, the way the brain works, and at a ‘higher’ level, the more recent findings of depth psychology based on non-invasive experimentation. This is worrying for all so-called traditional methods and ideologies and I tend to think we should suspend most of our present wilful initiatives based on old ideas until we get a bit more clarity (sic!).”
Thank you for that honorable comment,I respect you. You mention
that Dr.Assagioli had trouble with Freud and his method,and Jung did also. It is well known that Jung worked with I Ching and the Secret of the Golden Flower,another Chinese Classic. Jung assessed the problems in Freud as stemming from a lot of social inaccuracy,or,in reality,social radicalism. For example,Freud’s basic assignment of religion and faith as being minor contingents of sex. Freud had studied under Charcot and desired that his people,his disciples and associates,take a vow that they destroy the “black sea of mud”,his name for religion and faith. Or,he opined that religion promoted hypnotism.
Jung points out that this critique stems from the Western Enlightenment,that is persons like Descartes , who fragment the western person into a body and a mind–a paradigm totally foreign to I Chng. Further Jung describes that the underlying malady in our western-oriented civilization is a quality which he described as “explosive,expansive, aggressive.” Jung favors alchemy, a process for removing undesirable elements from a mixture . Jung suggests that we remove these undesirable elements (our explosive, expansive,aggressive nature),and that having removed them,the dross of our culture will be eliminated. A void is to be avoided strenuously. We see a void now in our culture which has come apart so severely that we doubt that we can doubt. Remove the base metal and replace it with noble metal. Jung finds the noble metal in our universal archetypes and in the Catholic Church, which he perceives as an alchemical institution.
Let’s cut to the chase: deconstructionism doubts we can even doubt, and Jung presents myths such as Oedipus and Jesus, both mythical characters, even if they existed in some sense in physical fact. We must decide whether nihilistic deconstructionism will synthesize us or alchemy motivated by archetypes. Perhaps I ching will assist us if we ask it honestly. Perhaps I Ching will appoint us a path through this dialectical contradiction.
Peace,friend and if I offend,i withdraw any offensive statement before it is objected to. Peace to all.
Wow! Thanks for such careful consideration of my comments.
Whatever Jung thought about Freud (& vice versa), and, while we can cast a backward glance at (possibly) the last time a great exponent of religious mysticism was able to influence a whole generation, I would still argue that we are in a unique, and possibly unequalled position to genuinely understand the human condition via scientific findings about the human brain and mind.
What we are confronted with is not a nihilistic deconstructionism (although I concede that the usual band of scientific atheist-materialists want to make it such), but a – sometimes shocking – new understanding of what makes us tick. If this knowledge were fully understood and accepted, would we have had the global banking crisis? Or would we be able to read the lessons from history all the better and actually apply them by spotting the inconsistencies in attitude and behaviour BEFORE they cause disaster?
As I implied, the I Ching may well have an altogether new and very important role but I, for one, need to have a much better understanding of WHY exposure to it via my neural pathways and the working of my mind – including my multiple subpersonalities – is of any real benefit.
I return your thoughts of peace and understanding together with my kindest regards.
David
Dear David;
Peace and I hope you arrive at a positive understanding of your crisis,one which makes for a superior existence for you. I wish you the very best sort of conclusion obtainable. May it heal you,friend.
“What we are confronted with is…. a – sometimes shocking – new understanding of what makes us tick. If this knowledge were fully understood and accepted,…. would we be able to read the lessons from history all the better and actually apply them by spotting the inconsistencies in attitude and behaviour BEFORE they cause disaster?”
My editing,which I hope respects you. It is positively intended,even if I mangle it. Please summarize briefly the “new understanding of what makes us tick….(and its ) knowledge.” I appreciate your answer, friend.
In my personal knowledge,i received services from a Korean Acupuncturist (recall, Acupuncture can use I Ching diagnoses and also therapies such as I Ching contingent Chi Kung movements. Da Liu specifies the correspondences. ) whose family was ten generations of Traditional Chinese Medicine physicians. He was Dr.Kim. So, Dr.Kim told me that I Ching was based on statistics, and also western scientists such as Leibniz confirm the usefulness of I Ching in Binary
Mathematics,Philosophy and Theology. Previous to Leibnitz by millenia, Heraclitis states that the law of this world is change. Dr. Kim and Leibniz suggest that in I Ching, the science of what Heraclitis gestured to is present and palpable. Dr. Kim used this understanding in his family to transfer to me healing for Chronic Pain Syndrome,and PTSD. Physical healing or applied alchemy is the proof that in some sense,I Ching is relevant at present, to some persons,with respect, friend.
This comment concerns Leiniz:[PDF]
On Leibniz and the I Ching
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~sdoroudi/LeibChi.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
by S Doroudi – 2007 – Related articles
On Leibniz and the I Ching. Sherwin Doroudi. April 26, 2007. “I don’t believe in I Ching.” ?John Winston Ono Lennon (1940-1980). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz …
Summary, I find the I Ching predicated by friendliness (an Idea presented by Aleister Crowley), and infused by the best aspects of philosophy (nomenclature), mathematics (relationships) , biology (chi
kung physiology),and physics (eight great elements or states of matter). You suggest that it is slightly dated and ,with respect,outmoded for the moment,with respect.
Thus: Yours is to defend your critique of I Ching, please. Mine is to
suggest nuances which defend I Ching. The ball is with you. Please answer, friend and fellow student of I Ching. I hope the friendly I Ching makes this a friendly experience for my friend David!