Essay 12: Know Thyself

Essay 12: Know Thyself

“Know thyself” is a piece of wisdom that could genuinely be considered ancient. More than 2500 years ago, “know thyself” was inscribed upon the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, and to this day may be the most infamous statement of Pre-Socratic Greece. There is heavy contention about what this statement meant in its initial inscription. Many argue it advocated for soundness of mind, others took it to mean a recognition of our strengths and weaknesses, and some understood it to mean that the deepest mechanism of our consciousness will coincide with the cosmic order. I like the statement though, so I will hijack it to give it a definition that is related to those above, but that fits as a natural implication of what we are capable of, given the previous essays. Since we now understand that what we think we believe and what we actually believe are different, and that some beliefs can repress others, learning to overcome those natural limitations becomes the only way to “know thyself” in any real capacity. It is not simple to do, in fact, it is often ignorant youngsters such as myself who think they know themselves to any significant degree (not that I think I do). When older people are asked, “What percentage of yourself would you say you know?” they often claim a comically low number like 1%, proving that in some fundamental sense, you realize you don’t know yourself the more you look. There is still merit in learning the skill, though, as living a meaningful life and introspection requires learning what you can use as an orienting light in an exercise where most markers are designed to confuse you. I will reflect on this exercise by first introducing my interpretation of the ego, delving into a new model for conceptualizing our mind, and detailing tools for getting to know each element of it individually.

As mentioned, the first point is to define what may be the protagonist of the story of self-discovery, the ego. Your ego is, in a sense, the gateway to your consciousness. When you say “I” it is frequently in reference to the ego. It is the component of your mind that comes closest to what one would call a continuous self. It is not the whole self, in fact, it’s really not all that large relative to the real depth and breadth the self is capable of. Jung does advocate for a relatively consistently in-control ego, held together by memory, identity, and projection. Personally, I do not believe the ego is quite so consistently in control, which leads me to my next point: our mind (and by extension our belief structure) is likely a set of largely segmented subpersonalities, of which our ego is one.

Subpersonalities may seem like a weird idea, but it is actually a fairly intuitive conclusion when we consider how rashly we act at times. Do you remember that I built up our consciousness as having a belief structure, needs, stories, and an awareness of a state-of-things? This was used to build my case for why we feel and act in the ways that we do. Subpersonalities individually have all of the above, but differ in the sense that they have their own, distinct belief structures, stories, and preferences as far as constructing our state-of-things goes. I personally had my life changed when I realized this so let me use a metaphor to highlight its significance. I will warn in advance that this metaphor is grounded in neuroscience, which I do not have any background in. If I am incorrect, please let me know in the Iron Sharpens Iron chat or message me directly on whatever platform it is a part of at that given time. I am genuinely interested in the topic and want to have a more holistic look.

Our mind can be best conceptualized as a play, and every part of the mind finds its purpose in relation to the play itself. The default self is largely within what is called the Default Mode Network, a part of the brain that is involved with engaging with your inner world. It is what is most heavily responsible for thinking about who you are, how you feel, what you’ve experienced, who you can become, and what is morally right. This part of yourself is also most heavily involved in internal dialogue, thus serving as not only the stage through which subpersonalities interact with one another, but the narrator that sets the context for the play itself, keeping control in a relaxed state. The Default Mode Network is what allows for the continuity of self that defines the ego, and the mediator of all internal dialogue, thus serving as the best neurological equivalent for the ego itself. While you’re in a state of relative calm, it is in control, serving as the Narrator to the play; keep this in mind for the time being. The subpersonalities serve as actors in the play; keep this in mind too, for the time being, since we will get back to that. 

The Default Mode Network (narrator) is not the only non-actor member in this play though; the Executive Control Network, Salience Network, and Limbic System are also involved. The Executive Control Network is the director, as far as this metaphor goes. It controls what actors are allowed to go on stage at any given moment, primarily by controlling which actors are not allowed to play. The Salience Network is the Lighting Crew and Casting Director. Based on the environment or what is relevant at the moment, it decides which subpersonality (actor) should take center stage. The Limbic System is the audience, but this audience is heavily involved in the play itself. The emotional responses of the Limbic System to what is happening “on stage” put pressure on the Director, Lighting Crew, and sometimes even the Narrator. It provides the emotional weight and memory that the Narrator often uses to guide the play. This places pressure on the Lighting Crew and Director to allow certain actors to take center stage. So in a sense, it is often the case that the audience and support cast of the play are at odds with one another. Remember this, too, as I will be getting back to it. What can happen in especially emotional moments is that the Salience Network and Executive Control Network are under so much pressure from the Limbic System that a single actor can also entirely disregard the narrator and seize control of the play for an extended duration, effectively temporarily replacing (or “eclipsing”) the ego. In those moments, we come to entirely identify with the actor in question, which begs the question of what that even means.

As I mentioned earlier, each subpersonality (actor) has its own belief structure, and therein lies what I think defines subpersonalities. The Inner Child, Critic, Protector, Avoider, Achiever, People Pleaser, Rebel, Aggressor, Nihilist, etc. There are countless subpersonalities that could take form within an individual, and the distinguishing factor between them is that they demand different forms of fulfillment for the same underlying needs (which is indicative of a distinct belief structure). Each subpersonality holds onto distinct stories and thus has its own associated memories, beliefs, and patterns of perceptions. For example, the inner child can be viewed as a set of neural connections (a belief structure) formed due to unmet needs in childhood. It is often more vulnerable, fearful, needy, and playful. This is because it is most deeply connected to memories of childhood rejection, loneliness, and helplessness, thus it hungers for the safety and relationships that it feels are most desperately missing. The inner child can be invited to take center stage by the Salience Network once it is triggered. These triggers often have to do with the memories the inner child holds on to, say, being broken up with. Taking center stage places the lights and attention on the inner child, and we start identifying more in the moment with the inner child. This means that the belief structure we embody is the one formed by the experiences, memories, priorities, and insecurities of the inner child, which is distinct from the belief structure of the other subpersonalities, as they have distinct experiences, memories, priorities, and insecurities. This belief structure, as mentioned before, is the interpretive framework we use to make sense of reality. Thus, in moments where we identify more heavily with our inner child, we may lose sight of the nuances of certain statements and feel less motivated to act when compared to moments we identify more with the Achiever. To rephrase, some things that matter to other subpersonalities are largely irrelevant to the inner child. Conversely, some things are needed by the inner child that are either useless or counterproductive to other subpersonalities. For example, in moments where the inner child takes center stage (ie, we identify with it), the belief structure we embody may want to have significance fulfilled simply by being held and reassured. To the achiever, though, this could be seen as a consolation prize and as an insult to my capacity to stand on my own two feet and get shit done. It would rather have significance fulfilled through getting better outcomes than those around me and being materially rewarded for them. The same need, when run through different belief structures, results in the urges of different things, and those urges are one of the defining traits of the subpersonality taking center stage. Note, however, that strengthening urges results in a tightening of our state-of-things towards what is most directly relevant to the urge according to the belief structure being embodied. This means that in those instances where the Limbic System (audience) places immense pressure on the Salience Network (when one is experiencing a strong urge), it can suspend the Director’s and Narrator’s ability to exert any control over the situation (as the director and narrator are filtered out of your state-of-things [which can be construed as the Director kicking them out]), leading to extreme, emotional outbursts and an eclipsing of our ego. 

Using the above analogy, the Director and Lighting Crew do not have belief structures, they are meta-elements of the mind that serve as a means of facilitating the expression of the actors/narrator primarily. There is a deep relationship between your subpersonalities and the audience because the audience is where emotions come from. To rephrase another way, they are where the needs primarily are. External stimuli get filtered through not just one belief structure, but different belief structures depending on which actor the stimuli prompts the salience network to focus on, and it is often the interpretation of the actor that gets sent to the audience for them to react to. This is a loop, though, as the lighting crew can use the audience's reaction to further focus on a specific actor, giving their words more weight, which the audience then listens to. It is worth noting that while the actors do not have needs, it is not like the audience lacks any means of interpretation. Certain stimuli, such as a sudden noise or the smile on the face of a loved one, largely bypasses the actors as a means of interpretation and goes straight to the audience, and it is their reaction that prompts the lighting crew to focus on an actor, and the loop in question begins from there. I use this metaphor because it is not like you can see the show; you can only hear the dialogue of the actors (mostly through the lens of what the lighting crew focuses on), feel the emotions of the audience, experience the focus of the lighting crew and infer the complexities of the self from that alone. Remember, your perspective during introspection is your ego, merely the narrator, an entirely separate being from the actors and audience. Now, you may have noticed that I got really into writing this metaphor and started rambling about how the mind works, but I’m just having fun here. Here is where all of this begins to become relevant to coming to know thyself. 

Knowing your “self” requires two levels of understanding at a minimum. The first is knowing all the members of your play (be it staff, actor, or audience member). The second is coming to know each member individually as a complex being. In either case, the secret is recognition of importance and identifying the patterns of its occurrence. These two lines of knowledge largely come hand in hand, as becoming more aware of all as distinct beings, largely requires knowing the qualities of each individually. To know a thing as a distinct thing is to know its attributes to such an extent that makes it mutually exclusive from other things. So I will, in a massive shift from how I thought the essay was going to go, discuss ways to literally come to know the different parts of yourself. 

There are many ways to understand your narrator (default mode network), but they all share a common thread: get bored. When your mind is largely removed from outcome-oriented thinking (what one could call boredom), your imagination comes out far more tangibly, which is a consequence of a more in-control narrator. Coming to know the Narrator is meditating on the capabilities and background noise that defines it, so here are some things you can do. Meditate. Just center yourself, do not try to suppress your thoughts, as that is like trying to suppress dirt in a glass of water; any stirring will make it worse, you just have to let the dirt sink to the bottom. Simply center yourself and label your thoughts as they pass you by: “memory” “judgement” “what if” etc. Then, after you are done, write down what you can make a note of. This helps you recognize the background noise of the mind, which is the tool our mind uses to develop a continuous sense of self. What do others think of you? What you did, are doing, or will do. Why did I do that? What will happen? Rapid visualizations, dialogues, or imagined scenarios. These things that come up are like hooks your mind uses to latch onto your experiences and self-through-time to construct a continuous “you”, so living with it for a moment can help you come to know that. More structured, written exercises through journaling, such as: mind wandering, autobiographical timelines, inner dialogue, and social simulations, can give you a sense of how your DMN functions as well. Try to take a day every now and then to rid yourself of outcome/dopamine-releasing items to make your perception of your DMN more robust.

Your Salience Network (lighting crew) can be understood by capturing the moment something new takes up your attention. The moment your attention shifts, make a note of it. What was it specifically that grabbed my attention? Why was it able to? Write down the answers in an open, non-judgmental way. Then, later, and in a controlled manner, ask, “What does this say about my lighting crew?” This can be external (the moment you stop work to look at your phone/a sudden noise shifts my focus) or internal (what caused the lighting crew to focus on this new subpersonality/why am I obsessing over this thought?). You can also try practicing turning your attention on and off. Try meditating for three minutes, then cleanly shifting to obsessing over an emotionally loaded event for a minute or two, then shift back to meditation. Note the changes in posture, the tightening of your attention, and how states linger between shifts. This is coming to know your Salience Network.

Your Executive Control Network (Director) can be understood by understanding the deeper logic it adheres to and its mechanism for ensuring order. Regarding the first point, this actually clarified something I realized I was wrong about for most of this book. At any given moment, the ECN acts according to whatever logic is being most adhered to in the moment by repressing or controlling feelings/impulses that motivate you to do things to the contrary. In less emotionally charged moments, your DMN’s logic (its belief structure) is in control. This logic is built on your long-term goals, self-image, and moral framework, as it relates to the continuous sense of self your DMN creates. When I wrote “what you think you believe” at any point in the essays, this was likely what I was unintentionally referencing. These are not necessarily emotionally charged beliefs in the same sense as the beliefs of your subpersonalities but they are still beliefs constructed by your life experiences and accepted elements of yourself. In moments where any one of your subpersonalities eclipses your ego, though, the logic you adhere to becomes that of the subpersonality you identify with, and as such, the logic of other subpersonalities and your ego/DMN gets repressed instead. Coming to see what logic your ECN adheres to in any given moment can be determined by paying attention to your thoughts and feelings, but more telling is what thoughts/reasons you are repressing. To understand the self-control/repression mechanism, other exercises can be used. Try to catch the moment you are about to act on an impulse (picking up your phone, interrupting someone, procrastination), but stop yourself. Meditate on why you stopped yourself and, more importantly, what it felt like to stop yourself. Pick an impulse and remember how it felt (a tingle in the hand, a mental image, etc) and how stopping yourself feels too. You can also try intentionally switching back and forth between two tasks every five minutes, and trying to cleanly keep yourself focused on each for the duration. This exercises it massively, which builds a mental equivalent of mind-body connection, which, of course, is helpful in coming to understand the ECN.

For the Limbic system, practice identifying emotions with granularity. When you feel something strongly, close your eyes, put your hand on your heart, and describe the emotion as granularly as you can. Even prompt yourself to go deeper. This may be best right before you are going to do something rash (procrastination and rationalizing being my demons). Think “What is this trying to fix?” “Why am I doing this?”. Write this stuff down too. Eventually, the goal is to go deeper, eventually coming to understand your needs themselves, in whatever form they become most apparent to you.

For the subpersonalities, it really is just listening to how you respond in emotional moments and learning to give them time to speak. Remember the exercise related to the ECN which emphasized focusing on what lines of thought you are repressing while emotional? This is an even more effective exercise for identifying and getting to know subpersonalities. The distinctive feature of each subpersonality is that it places importance on different beliefs. So identifying the patterns of what thoughts come to you, what is being said, and what elicits an emotional reaction in any given moment gives you the ability to get to know the different sides of yourself. Fundamentally, it is pattern recognition. Eventually, we become skilled enough to give subpersonalities voices, we can identify our “protector,” for example, and let it speak of what it wants out of life. I’ve even come to notice that writing dialogues between made-up characters is another great way to map out our subpersonalities. Since we can only really write characters we understand (in any effective, emotional capacity), what I imagine many great authors do is they allow one of their subpersonalities to take the reins for its associated character’s moments, and in that moment, the scene radiates with the worldview of that subpersonality. Eventually, one could even create a roundtable of each subpersonality and some traits of each, and the understanding of this allows for life to be experienced with far more richness, as now you have a more holistic understanding of what you feel richness is.

Sorry, this went entirely out of hand. I had a lot of fun and ended up just using this as an educational experience for myself. I hope you got something out of this, too. I will return for Essay 13: Love!