Is it possible to fully understand your self?

[Words]

Here we go with the problem of having to explain again. In order to do anything in this world, the logical thing to do is to understand one's self first, but to what extent is enough and to what extent is it possible to understand one's self? Do you yourself think you understand your self sufficiently? How much do you think you know yourself? What have you learned about yourself? How do you think we should learn about ourselves?

 

[Cognisant]

Can a box contain an exact replica of itself?

 

[BigApplePi]

Hello words. Greetings from the U.S. of A. which I can't help much.

We should learn about ourselves from first experience and then putting that experience in order. I've learned from both.

In the beginning I didn't know what to do with myself. I took some guesses but they often ended in chaos or disaster. By now I've settled in on a certain happy order but will continue to build on that. If something new and uncontrolled happens I will have to deal with that.

 

[Cognisant]

In order to do anything in this world, the logical thing to do is to understand one's self first

So you want to know what you want, when what you want is to know what you want, well now you know.

Want implies a lack of something, if you don't know what you want perhaps you don't lack anything and of that is the case why do you want to want?

 

[Cognisant]

I don't think it's possible for a human being to lack desire so completely as to desire desire for desire's sake, I think you know perfectly well what you want, but getting it requires effort and thinking is so much easier, so you're trying to think what you want into your possession, thinking perhaps that the better your understanding the less effort the acquisition of what you want will require, but it's easy to get stuck in thinking if you think thinking itself is making progress.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think we can get the "gist" of ourselves, both by thinking through things and also by the benefiting of experiencing and starting to recognize patterns in our thinking, our feelings, and our behaviors. But I don't know if we ever grasp "all" of ourselves. Usually just grasping 80% is enough to get us through the majority of situations.

But for example, when we're tossed into NEW situations and/or STRESSFUL situations where we've remained untried, well, those are situations where it's very possible we're about to learn something new about our needs, wants, thinking, commitments, emotional ties, values, and whatever else. Especially in moments of sacrifice, we learn which things we actually DO value more than other things, when we have to choose what we'll lose.

 

[Words]

Can a box contain an exact replica of itself?

I'm not sure how this is analogous to the self. Information about things can be physically smaller than their real counterpart. You can store data about a 3D object inside a USB that's smaller than the real counterpart.

Hello words. Greetings from the U.S. of A. which I can't help much.

We should learn about ourselves from first experience and then putting that experience in order. I've learned from both.

In the beginning I didn't know what to do with myself. I took some guesses but they often ended in chaos or disaster. By now I've settled in on a certain happy order but will continue to build on that. If something new and uncontrolled happens I will have to deal with that.

What about through literature? philosophy..psychology...neuroscience? experience doesn't tell me much these days. We have so much experience about ourselves and yet we fail to realize basic things about ourselves.

So you want to know what you want, when what you want is to know what you want, well now you know.

Want implies a lack of something, if you don't know what you want perhaps you don't lack anything and of that is the case why do you want to want?

Understanding one's self is always useful for humans. How useful though? It seems like it's the most important knowledge in obtaining all knowledge. All reality will pass through our self. Errors and Succeses that we make are because of our selves.

I don't think it's possible for a human being to lack desire so completely as to desire desire for desire's sake, I think you know perfectly well what you want, but getting it requires effort and thinking is so much easier, so you're trying to think what you want into your possession, thinking perhaps that the better your understanding the less effort the acquisition of what you want will require, but it's easy to get stuck in thinking if you think thinking itself is making progress.

How do you know this? How do you know if you are like this? How is thinking itself not making progress?

I think we can get the "gist" of ourselves, both by thinking through things and also by the benefiting of experiencing and starting to recognize patterns in our thinking, our feelings, and our behaviors. But I don't know if we ever grasp "all" of ourselves. Usually just grasping 80% is enough to get us through the majority of situations.

But for example, when we're tossed into NEW situations and/or STRESSFUL situations where we've remained untried, well, those are situations where it's very possible we're about to learn something new about our needs, wants, thinking, commitments, emotional ties, values, and whatever else. Especially in moments of sacrifice, we learn which things we actually DO value more than other things, when we have to choose what we'll lose.

Is 80% realistic? I think we grasp usually like 5% of ourselves. New situations are nearly endless.

 

[Jennywocky]

Is 80% realistic? I think we grasp usually like 5% of ourselves. New situations are nearly endless.

Um, 5% seems remarkably low to me. Srsly?

I mean, I'm 45 and have been through so much in my life at this point (marriage, raising kids, divorce, losing and finding jobs, buying and selling houses, being horribly in debt and paying it off, getting disowned by family and rebuilding, losing and gaining friendships, losing my religion and finding new paradigms, had a child with special needs, lost a parent, having projects succeed and projects fail, etc) that I feel I know myself pretty darn well at least in the broad patterns of how I am going to respond to a situation.

Of course the details change, and I have surprised myself on occasion in the past, but I feel like I have a pretty good handle on myself and those close to me at this point. There's just always some ambiguity in there.

It's like saying there are always an infinite of stories that can be told, so you can't know anything. Yes, there are always more stories; but at the same time, there's only either 45 stories, or 10 stories, or one story, when you break it all down to the pattern underlying the story. Grasp the pattern and you've got 80% (or whatever) of the story, and the rest is just detail variance.

 

[Words]

^Do you know neuroscience? That's still a part of the self.

Often, why and how we do things are determined by our social environment. It's not something we question. We just don't realize. Like not knowing we're trapped inside a box. We make these assumptions about what makes someone a 'person' and these assumptions are limited by our limited experiences. We dehumanize other people with other cultures. There's other things that make think that we know so little about ourselves.

 

[Hadoblado]

A box can contain a blueprint of its design.

I don't think it's accurate to represent knowledge of self in percentages.

You can know yourself completely in a particular way, but knowing your self completely in every way is impossible.

 

[BigApplePi]

Words.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
We should learn about ourselves from first experience and then putting that experience in order.

What about through literature? philosophy..psychology...neuroscience? experience doesn't tell me much these days. We have so much experience about ourselves and yet we fail to realize basic things about ourselves.

Literature, philosophy and psychology are about putting experiences in the order I mentioned.

Experience doesn't tell you much? I will give an example about me:

I don't know what your experience is or how it is limited. Therefore I don't have much for me to put in order. If you wish some input from me, you must give some information about your self or at least what is limited about it. The less first hand experience about you that you convey, the less others can give you their experiences as feedback other than vague generalities.

I find you somewhat closed. Now you have learned something more about yourself! In my earlier life I was very closed to others. That was because I was afraid. Then I learned something about what was safe to reveal and what was not.

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you know neuroscience? That's still a part of the self.

Right. That's detail. We can only know so much detail about ourselves.

Often, why and how we do things are determined by our social environment. It's not something we question. We just don't realize. Like not knowing we're trapped inside a box. We make these assumptions about what makes someone a 'person' and these assumptions are limited by our limited experiences. We dehumanize other people with other cultures. There's other things that make think that we know so little about ourselves.

Some comments. I suggest you read everything Jennyw wrote in this thread. It presents what experience and self-knowledge can be.

We can never completely know ourself because we and our environment constantly change. We try to keep up with generalities. As our interaction with people changes, we change. Minimum interaction, minimum self-knowledge learned. Take chances interacting with people ... then we learn a lot about ourselves ... the very meaning of risk means delving into the unknown.

I've always liked talking with you Words because I'm fond of abstractions and you talk abstractions ... except for that one time you suggested I was a troll. That was so specific.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Here we go with the problem of having to explain again. In order to do anything in this world, the logical thing to do is to understand one's self first, but to what extent is enough and to what extent is it possible to understand one's self? Do you yourself think you understand your self sufficiently? How much do you think you know yourself? What have you learned about yourself? How do you think we should learn about ourselves?

Can you fully understand yourself? Maybe. It depends on if you can be all of yourself, which is really, really hard after you start breaking boundaries. You can experience all of your self (which includes all of me and everyone else and everything else too).

Extent is variable and intrinsic to a given individual.

Do I understand my self sufficiently... I'll say yes, because I was able to type ^this, but I'd change "understand" to "know." I know myself enough to know that I'll probably never know myself, but might be able to if I continue to develop.

Can a box contain an exact replica of itself?

I think ^this is accurate.

I'm not sure how this is analogous to the self. Information about things can be physically smaller than their real counterpart. You can store data about a 3D object inside a USB that's smaller than the real counterpart.

Not all data is equal, and all data is reductionist.

What about through literature? philosophy..psychology...neuroscience? experience doesn't tell me much these days. We have so much experience about ourselves and yet we fail to realize basic things about ourselves.

Experience? 5-7g of Psilocybe cubensis alone in the dark in a safe environment.

All reality will pass through our self. Errors and Successes that we make are because of our selves.

I think we grasp usually like 5% of ourselves. New situations are nearly endless.

I agree with the first sentence, and the second in the sense of reciprocal causality's effect on determinism.

I think most people grasp <0.000000000000000001%.

 

[Jennywocky]

^Do you know neuroscience? That's still a part of the self.

Often, why and how we do things are determined by our social environment. It's not something we question. We just don't realize. Like not knowing we're trapped inside a box. We make these assumptions about what makes someone a 'person' and these assumptions are limited by our limited experiences. We dehumanize other people with other cultures. There's other things that make think that we know so little about ourselves.

I'm not sure what "neuroscience" has to do with any of what I said. I guess we're looking at this differently in terms of scope.

I can make decisions. I can predict my responses. I have a consistency to my actions. I have motivations in mind for what I choose and do what I do, and they have remained consistent. I feel as if there is coherency to my sense of self.

yes, many things have contributed to me BECOMING a certain type of person, and I might not be aware of all those things or why I am who I am, but that's not really what I'm talking about, nor do I need to know it to predict what I'll do next or act with a consistent persona.

In similar vein, I can also be able to describe a car, know its statistics and parameters, predict its probable performance and how it best operates, etc, etc, etc. I don't need to know who made it or why or know about other cars or how metallurgy works or how atoms work or how combustible engines works to be able to "know" my particular specific automobile especially after I've driven it for many years and have the experience of it in various situations. I still know my car, and for all practical purposes VERY intimately.

Make sense?

I think also that when people ask this question, all they're really asking if you have awareness of what you're like and know what you're likely to do in a given situation. They're not considering all the esoteric aspects of the question or "neuroscience," they're interested in the practical aspects of the question.

A box can contain a blueprint of its design.

I don't think it's accurate to represent knowledge of self in percentages.

It wasn't meant to be literal, it was because I was posting quickly and I didn't feel like typing something really vague like "know yourself pretty well" which of course people would say, "Well, how much is that?" All I really meant by it is, "a lot of myself but not everything."

You can know yourself completely in a particular way, but knowing your self completely in every way is impossible.

I wouldn't say we know ourselves completely in any PARTICULAR way -- I only know myself to a large degree but there could be nuances I still don't know, and I won't know that I don't know them -- and likewise then I do agree with the last part in that 100% knowledge isn't ever possible.

I just think the more situations we are in, the much better we know ourselves simply because we've experienced our own responses. And I think the depth of how well we know ourselves is substantial enough to give ourselves a coherent sense of ourselves and feel like we do have our own reasons and motivations for doing what we do, in the practical sense. The rest is all esoteric to me.

 

[Words]

A box can contain a blueprint of its design.

neat way of putting it.

I don't think it's accurate to represent knowledge of self in percentages.

You can know yourself completely in a particular way, but knowing your self completely in every way is impossible.

A 3D object can be seen from many angles (front, left, bottom, right, frontleft etc.) and zoomed at in different levels by different persons with different experiences, natures and mental states. But it still occupies the same amount of space and it still has the same materials that make it. This one is not just one particular way. It is the only objective way.

Words.

Literature, philosophy and psychology are about putting experiences in the order I mentioned.

make sense. do you rely on those for your self-learning or your own way of putting things in order instead?

Experience doesn't tell you much? I will give an example about me:

I don't know what your experience is or how it is limited. Therefore I don't have much for me to put in order. If you wish some input from me, you must give some information about your self or at least what is limited about it. The less first hand experience about you that you convey, the less others can give you their experiences as feedback other than vague generalities.

I find you somewhat closed. Now you have learned something more about yourself! In my earlier life I was very closed to others. That was because I was afraid. Then I learned something about what was safe to reveal and what was not.

Different people do different things with the same amount of information. There are people who can deduce and reinvent entire fields of knowledge with very limited information. I think this happens more in mathematics. This suggests that experience is not important. Don't we already have too many experiences that our experiences are just repetitions? Do some people need more repetitions than others? Shouldn't they, instead of seeking more experience, leverage against that requirement by focusing on how to order those experiences instead?

 

[BigApplePi]

I still know my car, and for all practical purposes VERY intimately.

Sounds orgasmic. Do you know if your battery will start under Arctic conditions or how deep a puddle it can drive through before it stops running or whether its airbags will protect you if they go off or how many miles you can go before you run outta gas?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Different people do different things with the same amount of information.

This isn't true. While it appears they may be exposed to the same amount of information, not all of that information gets inside. One can only act on what passes through the perception barrier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

 

[Architect]

What I've found is that I keep learning new things about my psyche, and it doesn't seem to have an end point. Partially because seeing yourself is extremely difficult, and also because it's a moving target.

 

[BigApplePi]

Partially because seeing yourself is extremely difficult, and also because it's a moving target.

You can keep from moving. Like so:

Spoiler

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=DDD51D59B3F9E60CD41FDDD51D59B3F9E60CD41F

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Literature, philosophy and psychology are about putting experiences in the order I mentioned.

make sense. do you rely on those for your self-learning or your own way of putting things in order instead?

I pick and choose in my own way from those. I might point out that I have a relatively solid self from which to add because of my life experience. When one is younger they have a lot to fill in. Often one tries out what others have done and keeps what they like rejecting what they don't. A role model helps. The role model can be a real live close person or less ably ... books. One has to be more self-reliant with books.

 

[Moocow]

My answer to the title question is simply no. One point in being conscious is that knowledge and action are a feedback cycle, from which an unlimited number of novel feedback cycles can be incorporated through self observation.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think it's accurate to represent knowledge of self in percentages.

You can know yourself completely in a particular way, but knowing your self completely in every way is impossible.

Err let me elaborate on this, since somebody bothered to read it XD

Percentages are completely useless since the number of ways in which you can view your mind are infinite. Thus not only are they sort of inappropriate, they are entirely meaningless.

By knowing yourself in a particular way, I mean that you set the criteria by which you know yourself, and this can be a very simple characteristic which is easily addressed, such as your preference for matching socks. Since you are setting the criteria, and you can phrase them any way you like, it's possible to know yourself in a particular way entirely (I have no preference for matching socks). Likewise, since the number of ways you can know yourself is limited only by your imagination, it's impossible to know yourself in every single way.

A 3D object can be seen from many angles (front, left, bottom, right, frontleft etc.) and zoomed at in different levels by different persons with different experiences, natures and mental states. But it still occupies the same amount of space and it still has the same materials that make it. This one is not just one particular way. It is the only objective way.

The object is an artificial category within your mind. What constitutes the object could change. It could take on new matter (a dog eats food and grows) and it could take on new form (a caterpillar's metamorphosis). There is no objective perception, there is only ever objective truth subjectively perceived. Any criteria used to identify the object can be rendered impotent. Likewise, the brain has no objective way of being perceived.

 

[Words]

Right. That's detail. We can only know so much detail about ourselves.

Is it detail or is it knowledge? Would our knowledge about the natural world be the same if we limited our physics to the non-micro? Deconstructionism has given us not detail, but knowledge. You know more about the world when you know the things that make it.

I've always liked talking with you Words because I'm fond of abstractions and you talk abstractions ... except for that one time you suggested I was a troll. That was so specific.

That was not serious.

Experience? 5-7g of Psilocybe cubensis alone in the dark in a safe environment.

Drugs? Is this the best way to learn more about yourself?

I'm not sure what "neuroscience" has to do with any of what I said. I guess we're looking at this differently in terms of scope.

I can make decisions. I can predict my responses. I have a consistency to my actions. I have motivations in mind for what I choose and do what I do, and they have remained consistent. I feel as if there is coherency to my sense of self.

yes, many things have contributed to me BECOMING a certain type of person, and I might not be aware of all those things or why I am who I am, but that's not really what I'm talking about, nor do I need to know it to predict what I'll do next or act with a consistent persona.

In similar vein, I can also be able to describe a car, know its statistics and parameters, predict its probable performance and how it best operates, etc, etc, etc. I don't need to know who made it or why or know about other cars or how metallurgy works or how atoms work or how combustible engines works to be able to "know" my particular specific automobile especially after I've driven it for many years and have the experience of it in various situations. I still know my car, and for all practical purposes VERY intimately.

Make sense?

I think also that when people ask this question, all they're really asking if you have awareness of what you're like and know what you're likely to do in a given situation. They're not considering all the esoteric aspects of the question or "neuroscience," they're interested in the practical aspects of the question.

How do you know if something is practical or not if you do not know what it is? You say that you know yourself very intimately because of practical purposes. But our ideas of 'practical' is limited to what we know. If you know yourself enough that you can predict what you'll do, wouldn't that be more practical?

This isn't true. While it appears they may be exposed to the same amount of information, not all of that information gets inside. One can only act on what passes through the perception barrier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory

Different people do different things with what information passes through their perception barrier.*

Interesting complicated stuff. Information, by definition, is perceived data so it's not information that is perceived but data. Information is not really out there. It is largely internal.

The object is an artificial category within your mind. What constitutes the object could change. It could take on new matter (a dog eats food and grows) and it could take on new form (a caterpillar's metamorphosis). There is no objective perception, there is only ever objective truth subjectively perceived. Any criteria used to identify the object can be rendered impotent. Likewise, the brain has no objective way of being perceived.

Objects and their states can be divided in discrete units of time and in discrete units of space. Change is dependent on time. At n point in time, the object is this. At another point, it is 'this.' A dog is a puppy minus what it ate at particular point in time, an insect is a butterfly+other things at this point in time. Chemical equations represents the objective perception of physical phenomenon just like how mathematical equations represents the objective perception of quantity or size.

2 HCl + 2 Na → 2NaCl + H2

 

[Hadoblado]

Objects and their states can be divided in discrete units of time and in discrete units of space. Change is dependent on time. At n point in time, the object is this. At another point, it is 'this.' A dog is a puppy minus what it ate at particular point in time, an insect is a butterfly+other things at this point in time. Chemical equations represents the objective perception of physical phenomenon just like how mathematical equations represents the objective perception of quantity or size.

2 HCl + 2 Na → 2NaCl + H2

You can be as precise as you want over spatial and temporal scales, the puppy is only a puppy in a subjective sense. Objective reality has no labels (what would be the point?).

 

[Words]

You can be as precise as you want over spatial and temporal scales, the puppy is only a puppy in a subjective sense. Objective reality has no labels (what would be the point?).

All I'm saying is that understanding, and specifically the understanding of the self, is not as arbitrary as "in any particular way." We operate under deterministic rules. There are macro and micro patterns to our behavior. This form of objective understanding is what ca be generally useful to us humans.

 

[Hadoblado]

Our disagreement is that to me, 'objective understanding' is an oxymoron. There are just subjective understandings that are consistent with objective reality.

You can have criteria for making the understanding of self more specific than 'any particular way', but to my knowledge this was not specified (I did skim-read however).

 

[kantor1003]

I'm sorry for quoting myself, but the justification is that I just recently posted in the depression club something that has to do with exactly the same subject. Your question has been on my mind A LOT. It's the question which has hunted me, with varying frequency, for the last 3 years or so, though traceable back to my middle teens.

"An interesting line of thought: In recent months, I've began to think of the self, as Satre puts it, as a nothingness. Though not in his sense. By nothingness I only take that to mean that the self has no intrinsic properties apart from the ability to represent objects which is revealed (to consciousness/self/mind) with a certain phenomenological flavor /(ie. the represented coffee tasting bitter, or the represented painting experienced as gloomy/, and to become aware of such representations (ie. representing yourself representing by way of an intentional act a beer, a brown door, or yourself afflicted with pseudohypomania). Sometimes this nothingness predicates things of itself and, more often than not, it is believed. With time and new experiences, new predicates arise, and old ones are being disposed, forgotten, or changed into it's opposite. The set of predicates in immediate awareness (conscious, or crystalized in the post-conscious) is what you consider to be your self (you can say your self image). Altering, or removing these predicates changes the way in which you experience, how you act, and, subsequently, what you will achieve. If you remove all possible predicates, perhaps you find out that there is something that can be truly 'said of' the self, with the result that there is no nothingness after all. But in most people, at least in me, there is a whole lot of nothingness! Accidental predicates that serve to fill in the void that is me, motivated by some principle that most likely is shared by us all."

Tbh. I think the only possible way that comes with any promise of reaching a somewhat accurate understanding of self is by routes such as the one lyra claimed to follow at one point. That is, by what can be referred to as personality experimentation. The reasoning being that if you want to understand what you are, you must find the unchangeable qualities of your self. The only way to know what is changeable, and what is not, is to strive towards changing what you, in your present moment, assume to be fundamental to your way of being. It isn't enough, here, to entertain an opposite to what you assume is (felt as a 'knowing'), but attempting to actually embody it. However, the road is difficult, and open only to those who have the courage and strong will necessary to attempt it because you can't change without everything else changing: your friends, your relation to family, your everyday.
An alternative might be to just seek out the extreme and radically different, and to do it often. But this, I think, is related to the former.

It might be that one discovers that it's (the self) only a process, but then one could attempt to understand it as process.

This is all to say that I'm suspicious towards the claim that pure reasoning, a priori, is sufficient to reach an understanding of the self. I think you have to, as the scientists do, experiment, and to falsify and confirm. The obstacle that, for instance, the social sciences has in that it often confirms it's own hypothesis, applies in this case as well in that we are prone to confirm through experience our own hypothesis about ourselves.

Oh, and psychoactives temporarily changes the way you look at yourself and that around you. I think that it can be a highly helpful tool. It might make you confused, but the self is confusing. Being confused often just signals that you see a little bit more than you did before, that you are beginning to discover the further reach of it's complexity/richness/depth.

 

[Words]

Our disagreement is that to me, 'objective understanding' is an oxymoron.

yes, this is obvious. this is not what i mean.

There are just subjective understandings that are consistent with objective reality.

the bolded part is what i mean.

subjective understandings that are consistent with objective reality > any other perspectives.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Drugs? Is this the best way to learn more about yourself?

Different people do different things with what information passes through their perception barrier.*

Interesting complicated stuff. Information, by definition, is perceived data so it's not information that is perceived but data. Information is not really out there. It is largely internal.

Does anything else produce the same effect?

And I'd expect people to do the exact same thing if the exact same information passed through their perception barrier. Differences in behavior should be the result of differences in perception.

 

[Words]

And I'd expect people to do the exact same thing if the exact same information passed through their perception barrier. Differences in behavior should be the result of differences in perception.

Different people obtain different information from different data and thus engage in different behavior.*

Perception is perception. There is another thing: judgement. Evaluation and Rationalization. Person A sees a dog. Person B sees a dog. Both perceive dogs. There is a similarity between their perception. There is a difference in their encounters with dogs. Person A likes dogs. Person B does not. One hugs the dog, the other does not. There is a difference in their rationalizing abilities. One sees a dog and deduces nothing else but the dog. The other sees the dog and deduces the existence of other dogs nearby. Some people are even able to deduce extremely distant yet accurate facts from the data. Think Holmes. Thus, different people do different things given the same data or sensory input.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Different people obtain different information from different data and thus engage in different behavior.*

Perception is perception. There is another thing: judgement. Evaluation and Rationalization. Person A sees a dog. Person B sees a dog. Both perceive dogs. There is a similarity between their perception. There is a difference in their encounters with dogs. Person A likes dogs. Person B does not. One hugs the dog, the other does not. There is a difference in their rationalizing abilities. One sees a dog and deduces nothing else but the dog. The other sees the dog and deduces the existence of other dogs nearby. Some people are even able to deduce extremely distant yet accurate facts from the data. Think Holmes. Thus, different people do different things given the same data or sensory input.

Whether or not one likes dogs is based on previous perceptions and experiences. It's a Markov chain. Describing decisions based on prior like vs dislike is describing a Markov loop (not that this is what you're doing, I just need this in front of me).

Jungian terminology... I'd call judgement a choice of one Markov dichotomy over another, and perception transcending a dichotomy.

I think the next step is to differentiate types of perception. For some reason I'm lumping meaning into perception, so this is a different type?

I think I've got it.

There are two types of things perceived. The first is objective reality, equipped with infinite data. The second is subjective reality, which is what makes it through one's perceptive barrier/s. The difference between the two, the filter itself, is meaning. All subjective reality has meaning. Everything with meaning has been related to the self. Thus the key to fully understanding yourself is to be able to conceive and apply universal meaning; completely encapsulate yourself using the external environment. Whether you go to it or bring it to you doesn't matter.

To tie this in with the earlier mention of hallucinogens: users often report that while high, in addition to the fractals, delusions, and heightened sensory awareness, "the world is dripping with meaning" or something to that effect.

I swear Kantor has used this phrase in the past here somewhere... *goes to search*

*EDIT: Here's the thread: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15936&highlight=dripping+meaning

and the post: http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=371137&postcount=16

 

[kantor1003]

Our disagreement is that to me, 'objective understanding' is an oxymoron. There are just subjective understandings that are consistent with objective reality.

Ok. The objective reality is the reality which is apart from our prone-to-err perception (which include understanding) of it. We can have beliefs about this reality, about the 'what is out there', some of which will be true, and some of which will be false. Let's assume that understanding is a set of beliefs. And, similar to belief, it is an understanding of something; of the 'why' or 'how' of something being what it is. That's why you say that 'objective understanding' is an oxymoron, because understanding is always of something, and the objective reality, never being of something, always is a something.

But I think one can make sense of 'objective understanding' in such a way, and without invoking any kind of god, that the terms doesn't contradict each other. In brief, it is by looking at understanding, not as a relation between a subject and of an object (it can be the subject itself), but by looking at understanding as an object.
By accepting any form of physicalism we accept that our minds in some way are, at the very least, wholly dependent on our brain/body. Me having an understanding then, assuming physicalism, refers to me having some mental state that a)either exists in time and space, or b) is wholly dependent for something existing in time and space for it to realize. More specifically, my brain. We might not agree to what exactly 'understanding' is, but we agree that, if it exists at all, it is in my mind, which means that it refers to my brain being structured in such a way that I am properly said to understand something.
When one says 'objective understanding', it can't refer to the relation between a subject and an object (which would be what we ordinary mean by the word 'understanding'), because understanding is always a subject grasping it's object, and objective reality is what simply is in itself. But, and this is the point, there is a very real sense in which I am in a condition (for lack of a better word) of understanding. The condition of understanding is me (understood here as brain/body) structured in a particular way within space-time. When I understand something - regardless of what my understanding is of and whether I have correctly understood it - it is a physical process which I undergo, or 'find myself in'. This means that it exists as a matter of fact in the real world and is as objective as any other physical process. And remember, we are not talking about the word 'understanding', what we mean by it, or the relationship between the subject understanding and the object of that understanding (because, as you point out, there is a difference between the word we use to describe the thing, and the thing itself ("there is no puppy" etc.)), but the actual, physical event.

 

[HDINTP]

Hello words. Greetings from the U.S. of A. which I can't help much.

We should learn about ourselves from first experience and then putting that experience in order. I've learned from both.

In the beginning I didn't know what to do with myself. I took some guesses but they often ended in chaos or disaster. By now I've settled in on a certain happy order but will continue to build on that. If something new and uncontrolled happens I will have to deal with that.

So I do not have to say a thing...

 

[BigApplePi]

Understanding Defense Mechanisms

One thing in the way of understanding oneself is we all have unconscious defense mechanisms. These are unconscious mechanisms where we refuse to see reality.

An example is called, "projection." Suppose we have some bad quality we don't want to admit to ourselves. The damn thing is there but it's too painful to see. But we do see this same bad quality in others ... even if it's not there. We "project" our self onto the other person.

Can you think of anything you dislike in another person? If so, you are open to looking for that same thing in yourself. I'll give an example. Suppose you hate people who talk too much. That could be an example of where you yourself want to talk but don't. So you envy those who do and blame them for talking too much.

 

[Reluctantly]

Define "fully". Percentages don't really mean anything without the content that they are supposed to represent.

 

[Imaginary Numb3r]

May I ask a different question?
Is it possible to fully understand anybody?

I don't think so and I/you are no exception. Maybe a computer which analyzes humans could be able to something like that. But you shouldn't forget that people change over time so you are never "up to date".

However, if are really devoted I'm sure that you can reach a very high level of self awareness. But it's not a simple task and demands you to criticize yourself and disassemble your motives and behavior patterns.

Actually... I was quite shocked when I was reading the first time about INTPs because it confirmed many observations about myself, relationships, sometimes even word by word. I guess I wasn't too far off ^^

 

[BigApplePi]

May I ask a different question?
Is it possible to fully understand anybody?

I would rephrase that question so: What can we understand about other people?

There might be a gravitational center of character traits people have that enable us to make educated predictions: like are they reliable/unpredictable? Friendly/hostile, happy/ sad, serious/silly, thinking/feeling, etc. The fully part couldn't be fulfilled any more than with the self.

 

[Imaginary Numb3r]

I would rephrase that question so: What can we understand about other people?

There might be a gravitational center of character traits people have that enable us to make educated predictions: like are they reliable/unpredictable? Friendly/hostile, happy/ sad, serious/silly, thinking/feeling, etc. The fully part couldn't be fulfilled any more than with the self.

Sounds reasonable to me.