Do you think that people have a core to them, like a core personality? Or perhaps I could describe it more as something they feel confident in and can hang on to, something that is always there? Or do you think that people are merely whatever they feel/think and do from moment to moment?
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: One question.
Tue, November 28, 2006 - 4:57 PMI think I can get on board the idea of a personal core. I've always thought that drugs and alcohol just tend to amplify you who already are, so that kind of supports the core theory from where I'm standing. Of course, I think your core can go through vast changes over the course of your lifetime, but I don't think we deviate from the core that rapidly.
Interesting question. Thanks. -
-
Re: One question.
Sat, March 3, 2007 - 9:58 PMHow would you describe your core?I read one question and realized...I dont have one
-
-
Re: One question.
Tue, November 28, 2006 - 5:08 PMI believe there is a core that is pretty unchangeable, though our upbringing can also dramatically effect some aspects of how we are. -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 3:38 AMThe question really belongs in a basic psychology or developmental psychology dialogue. It may lend some descriptive features to the philosophical question of 'existentialism' but does not get beyond the cultural boundaries of the 'I/ thou'. -
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 9:18 AMI have posted this in some psychology tribes but I wanted to see why you guys had to say, too. And from my information, existentialism has to do with living life on a moment to moment basis (this is a very basic description, but...) so while we are living in this moment to moment basis, are we at core something or are we merely responding to our past and present environment...and I think it's a philosophical question. -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 9:57 AMany kind of question is cool with me.
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Thu, March 8, 2007 - 2:34 PMI think people do have a core being but I think this being can only find expression within the context of their lives. That is to say that I as a being "A" can only have A*x/y/z(ad infinitum) possibilities.
I am free to express a practically infinite set of possibilities with my given "A" but they are always my possibilities and can never belong to any other no matter how infinite their span. Many of my possibilities are dead possibilities for me but all are dead possibilities for The Other.
Only I can experience my possibilities, they are unique to me. I am trapped in a vortex of my own choices. Of all my choices everything is contingent except myself. I am the one unifying aspect of all that is not lived or lived by me - of course it could be argued that myself is contingency reified. I might say "wahey! here is this fantastic set of events (some drab and some quite large) of which I am aware, therefore I am."
Blah blah blah.
I personally say. . . crap, I forgot what the question was now.
-
-
-
-
Re: One question.
Sat, March 3, 2007 - 10:04 PMI think that the core is a simple animal most asspects of our personality are dellusions we create in attempts to feel comfotable with ouselves,peers. -
-
Re: One question.
Sun, March 4, 2007 - 7:59 AMSince Existentialism requires that we not live in the past, i doubt most would believe that we have a static core. People may be born with a general personality type ..but the enviroment can shape that and events can change it even further. Existentialism implies a choice...power to affect our own lives, perspectives and attitudes.
It reminds me of cancer patients who suddenly realise they have a short time to live. Some, who had previously been negative, procrastinating, introverted, angry or suspicious suddenly become optimistic, adventurous, compassionate, tolerant and generous.
-
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 7:35 AMThat says a lot for the dynamic of cognitive processes in the formation of world view and mood.It's a factor not often taken into consideration when prescribing for patients with mood disorders.
-
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 8:28 AMTrue. In fact, newer treatment for disorders such as Borderline Personality Disorder, such as DBT and ACT help the client to change their reactions to stimulation, emotions, past trauma, anxiety. They use several strategies and stages. In the end there is a dramatic change in the client's worldview, tolerance for change, stabilized emotions etc.
The one area I have not seen addressed is compassion and empathy. I've just begun to study this, so I may not have encountered that part....however, I have read about the studies of Mathieu Ricard,a monk who meditates on compassion. He has meditated to the point that he can voluntarily produce pure compassion (as measured by a SPECT scan)
www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt...ay.printable
in other studies on meditation ...1000 hardened felons in an Indian prison were given 10 days of mediation training and emerged full of pure compassion for all living beings. They did require regular meditation to maintain this state , but it did seem to be a change in their "core" personality...
www.vri.dhamma.org/research...har1.html -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 8:40 AMI'm not aware of that study, but I wonder what the preconditioning would look like in a an approach that must, of necessity, require some understanding of "otherness". -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 12:16 PMI'm not sure if I understand your question or the use of the word preconditioning. But Vipassana is about the "other" ...all others, including all sentient beings.
It is also existentialist in the sense that it encourages "being in the moment ". It involves acceptance, too, another existential tenet.
Existentialism and zen have a lot in common, but then ,many of the European theories have ( often unacknowledged) Eastern roots. -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 1:56 PMI am not questioning the validity or authenticity of Vipassana,.... only the specific application of the philosophical concept to psycho-therapy. I am sure that many cognitive approaches can work effectively toward an improved mental state. My practical or scientific bent of mind, wants to know the specifics of how it works.As I understand the basics of this kind of approach, the subject is to meditate on compassion for sentient beings. This presupposes that the subject is sensitive to the "other". Much of my work has been with psycopathic personalities and other personality disorders, and I can only imagine the preconditioning that would be necessary before such an approach could be effective,(if at all).. Then I would like to see a 5year follow-up study of those subjects. After all, even the monks have years of study in the practice of meditation.As Evans-Wentz, Leary and Alpert have shown, it is set and setting as much as cognitive thought that effectuates the outcome. -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 3:23 PMOh, I see. I wasn't suggesting Vipassana as a therapeutic strategy per se. i was just offering its results as "proof" that core traits can be changed. The Indian felons were changed in ten days. This was not just anecdotal. They scanned their brains before and after. the prior scans showed damage in the frontal lobes consistent with other violent criminals. Afterwards the damage was gone.
I doubt many patients could be easily encouraged to meditate, but ...
actually I work at a residential treatment center and teach a basic mediation (I'm not specially trained). Most of my clients are serving sentences and many have been in prison. I tell them this will help anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and even repair damaged neurons. They grab pillows and lay on the floor. (be aware that many of these gents have psych diagnoses, PDs). I do deep breathing, progressive relaxation and guided imagery. In the Guided imagery I let them determine their journey and ask them to identify strengths that they have...and to use them to overcome obstacles of their choice. I tell them that surviving a life of crime and addiction required many strengths and that they can use them to reach new goals. These hardened guys wake up renewed and refreshed and encouraged and BEG for more meditation. I play new-agey music, which I thought would be rejected by this bunch ...but no. And I never get over looking aroundthe room at 30 felons flaked out on the floor...deep in meditation or snoring ...
I'm a clinically oriented person, myself and it took a lot of convincing for me to believe this stuff myself...
but how to use it in psychotherapy?...good question..I'm in my practicum now and have a client who could use it, but technically it is not therapy .....so I don't know how or if I should approach it.... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 4:11 PMOh, Ok! I was thinking primarily about those felons in India. I took my practicum at Jackson Prison in Michigan in the Psychiatric clinic then went on to work in adult and juvenile corrections for 20 years. I also worked in ACT(Assertive community treatment) on the streets of Chicago then Grand Rapids, Michigan. In both settings we were dealing primarily with those most resistant to treatment.The rapport with the treator is
essential and can at least get you 'in the door', so to speak, but the natural resistance to authority is challenging when the patient (I never liked that word),is able to tell you to, "take a flying leap". -
-
Re: One question.
Wed, March 7, 2007 - 6:16 PMYeah, you have been in the trenches! I've met some of your peeps, I'll bet>
I'm in Traverse City.
The felons in India were offered better food if they did the meditation. My clients are PRS on probation serving the remainder of a sentence in or facility and can be sent back to jail or prison if they don't comply. And I'm sure they are only going through the motions when we start out. But they are pretty malleable when the lights are low, soft music...my soothing voice *smiles*...I'm surprised myself. The toughest ones usually respond the best. Maybe they are the most damaged and feel cared about for just a little while.
So yes, they have to be forced into treatment but those felons India were the most violent in the country. There is a tv program on it ...and maybe a downloadable video. They went back and did blind studies. It is also used in Australia for addiction treament.
Have you heard Micheal Johnson speak? He works out of Detroit and does a great job connecting with street people ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: One question.
Sat, March 10, 2007 - 7:00 PMI think that perhaps we do have some traits that we tend toward, that could be considered to be a core, but largely I think that people are products of their environment, especially their communication mediums, as those tend to shape how a person thinks.
The idea of a personal core is what Plato was arguing for, only he called it an essence, and posited that everything had an essence. Existentialist thought flipped that on it's head, saying that, contrary to Plato's idea that before a thing exists it has an essence, existence proceeds any essence. First a thing is, then it has an essence attributed to it.
I'm a bit late to the conversation, I know, and am steering it back to the original question, so ... sorry. -
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Sun, March 11, 2007 - 5:10 AMPlato thought that we are like a chariot pulled by different horses, he explicitry said that there was no core in so doing (the concept of cogito never even exdisted to denied).
John Rawls had a discourse on rights, we only have the rights we can make intelliigable. Maybe cogito is a priviledge of modernity? We have this concept simply because it is. I remember an ex-girlfriend's mum saying to "Women of our generation didn't even think of ourselves. How come you do all this introspection?"
I create myself out of the tools I have available, one of whiich is language.
No caveman was any less than me but that cavemaan didn't have the tools to use to form his existence into a cohesive whole maybe. -
-
Re: One question.
Sun, March 11, 2007 - 3:04 PMWhen you look within
Who's there? -
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Sun, March 11, 2007 - 4:56 PMAnswer your own question first and then I will give you a full and candid answer. I demand answers, you need to justify your name with some kind of truth. My brother's name was Frank and I refuse to acknowledge any Frankness which does not deliver some kind of truth in advance.
-
Re: One question.
Thu, March 15, 2007 - 6:23 PMI see me, my core and I ask, "why do you look outside yourself and ask others about something that may or may not be with in you"?
As for truth, your posts suggest to many assumptions, especially about what is true for me to believe you have any regard for or knowlegde of truth.
In fact, it would be most unwise to listen to a persn that could not look within and find a deeper sense of self. Even worse if the person claims to have looked and not seen something...wouldn't that be equivelant to shallow?
As for Plato, smart guy, but notice he's not a rocket scientist, he didn't invent the telephone no did he help Jung write the 12 Steps and he certainly isn't/wasn't an authority on everything. In fact, there's been many great minds since his, some of his ideas went further, others didnt survive and the rest are still debated. I am surprised you actually picked Plato to quote inorder to justify your claim? Your quote, questions and references suggest to me that you don't form you own ideas and are looking outside your self to validate a belief you know to be false.
You mentioned earlier something about introspection. How is it possible to look within if there is no core...how do you look into a surface if there's nothing under it?
More important than that... your demands, ridiculous, talk about an insulting gob of goo. Know that your tone reflects a supriority complex thats intended to cover up an inferiority complex. HAHA I see you anyways. As for your claim to having a brother named Frank, I don't buy it. You are a liar...many steps past a story teller. No self respecting person would belittle the death of a loved one in such an egotistical fashion, (unless they lacked any form of conscience). Besides, the drama you express is way to unrealistic to ever be real. If your hoping to become a play write...keep hoping. Oh, and I suggest you practice else where...to say I don't suffer fools gladly is a terrible understatement as they seem to fuel my mile wide mean streak.
Remember, my name is Frank, and I am. I use my real name because I am real. This isnt a phalic attempt to inflict people with who I dream to be. I know I am able to tell the truth about you(as I have already done) way past your abilty to handle it. In fact a correction and appology would go a long way the same as an assertion of obstinance would let the rains out.
-
-
Re: One question.
Fri, March 16, 2007 - 3:38 AMIs Frank a poseur? He is at least a provocateur. He is somewhat more personal than the philosophical approach that I would expect from the posters on this site. What exactly is 'core personality'? I need to nail down such a sweeping concept before I can decide whether it exists.If we are speaking of an unchangeable essence of ones persona, then that surely is what is the basis for this tribes existence. -
-
Re: One question.
Fri, March 16, 2007 - 10:57 AMA poseur? You ask that after Raths insulting post, are you serious?
Pequ, Your questions border on insult, talking like I am not here is an insult. That would make you the second person to attack me here. Thats alot for such an enlightened crowd. My first post was perfectly existential. Any person that has developed enough self awareness to see their core would get it. I am surprised those that haven't would feel so offended.
I am quite surprised when people say they look within and don't see another side, or what I call a deeper aspect of self, a side more true to princable and conscience, a part of self that looks outward at the exteriour self, the behaviours and the conscious state of thought and determins/reflects how it feels about it's self as a whole, and in parts.
When we consider the idea of ego, are we not considering there is a more real aspect of self? When we listen to and or follow our instincts/hunches, is that not a deeper more real part of self?
In a nut shell, the core self examines and influence's the ego and identity, it resides in sync with the conscience and thinks (is present) in and through every level of consciousness. It is well integrated and detatched at the same time(we can only survive so much truth at any point in time, we hide what we can't handle).
The real answer to your question is found inside of you. As long as you ask others your not listening to yourself! I'd feel offended too. -
-
Re: One question.
Fri, March 16, 2007 - 12:49 PMI am not willing to accept a concept as outmoded as 'ego' . I view the identity of an individual as much more complex and difficult to fully place in that box(with apologies to Freud). The fleeting and amorphous experience that we call hunches are more likely the brains way of ascertaining the answer to a question by processes we failed to follow.I prefer the statement, "I am therefore I think" , in contradiction to the reverse.I asked the question of posing or provoking due to the personal manner in which the previous post had been phrased.I apologize for the personal level of that question. I hope that we can continue the dialogue in a more intellectual manner. -
-
Re: One question.
Sat, March 17, 2007 - 7:49 AMI don't think you need to apologise to Freud, it's taken a century to undo his idea that we are all a bundle of neuroses and the most we can do is acknowledge that ...
I agree , too, < I am , therefor I think>
I guess I'd want to agree on the concept of "core"...core personality, core values,
Can "core" be changed? Does it evolve?
This may sound irrelevant but I used to raise show dogs. Each breed has general personality characteristics. Each puppy in a litter within each breed has its own personality characteristics. Those characteristics can be changed by environment or training, though the original temperament may not change (then again, it sometimes does). This does not mean I have an answer to the original post...just more questions!!! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: One question.
Sat, March 17, 2007 - 1:58 PMI ask myself, does my core evolve and or change or does a deepening connection with my core make it appear so, or is it my responding to the core that takes me to a deeper level of being where my core is altered in a "new" experience or do I mold that core with my "outer choices?
-
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Sun, March 18, 2007 - 9:46 AMFrank,
I used to think that some of the people in this tribe were being quite insulting but then I just realized it's an existentialism tribe and a lot of these people (type of philosophy aside...) are just using socratic questioning and just being very factual and in fact, quite provocative but indeed, provocative can be so much fun!
I hope you don't take it personally...you seem as though you have things to say that I, at least, would like to hear. -
-
Re: One question.
Sun, March 18, 2007 - 10:51 AMWow, I appreciate your observation. Personally, I haven't found any of this thread insulting ...just provocative. I fact, there's little trolling so it's a pleasant change that allows people to speak freely... -
-
Re: One question.
Sun, March 18, 2007 - 2:20 PMThanks B, funny I was questioning the same myself. I have had a tendency in the past to take things personally...in this case no harms been done.
I look at things very literally, especially "words and sentences" which is actually why I joined this tribe. -
-
Unsu...
Re: One question.
Sun, March 18, 2007 - 6:11 PMp.s. I don't even know what a "poseur" is but I do think this is funny, for those of us who are a bit pretentious.
vids.myspace.com/index.cfm -
-
Re: One question.
Thu, July 19, 2007 - 2:02 PMmy core is my sense of being, or 'I AM' ( at least as long as i am in this body)
anything else is always changing, therefore not real
another perspective would be: anything i can perceive, i am not.
any perception is an object in conciousness, although not separate from the subject
(one cannot exist without the other)
so i guess it might be appropriate to say we have no perceived 'core' as such
only the knowledge/feeling/thought that I AM
this is something the rational mind will never grasp completely,
only relatively and partially. to be understood i believe it must be
intuitively grasped. that's why it is usually futile to talk about these kinds of things...
and eventually it all leads to the same thing: we know nothing.
much love~ (or the perception of unity within the realm of duality)
:)
-
-
Re: One question.
Mon, July 23, 2007 - 7:32 PMWell, I think each person's sense of self is as "true" as he needs it to be. Like Kuhn's paradigms.
A theory is like a tool for a job. Different jobs...different tools ...one person's idea of a "core" will differ from the next ...depending on the context.
That's what I'm thinking ...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: smoke and mirrors
Wed, July 25, 2007 - 1:33 AMI'm serious. The idea of personality is pretty Eurocentric, after all ... as are these arguments -
-
Unsu...
Re: smoke and mirrors
Fri, August 24, 2007 - 8:28 AMYou sound a bit like Hohn Watson. Personality is a combination of nature and nuture, what we are and what we have learned and how it all works together to form a static but stable set of behavoirs. -
-
Re: smoke and mirrors
Fri, August 24, 2007 - 4:49 PMSure, but "nurture" takes many forms, especially in different cultures ...so personality is formed by culture among other things, so whether we have a core or percieve a core ...or not ... could be contextual ... -
-
Unsu...
Re: smoke and mirrors
Sat, August 25, 2007 - 4:26 PMI just finished Man's Search For Meaning and I think that Frankl's idea of the soul or consistent self is "meaning," which we find in each moment but is always there, whether we find it or not. That's how I understand it but maybe I'm wrong. -
-
Re: smoke and mirrors
Sun, August 26, 2007 - 10:33 AMWell, I don't believe opinions are wrong ...they are opinions and I think if a work such as Frankl's moves you to think and wonder, then you have gained something from it.
I like Frankl's existentialism because it does focus on the importance of personal meaning and in his illustrations , meaning is literally the difference between life and death. What an amazing concept.
He wrote about those who have it and those who don't. And of course, the search for it. It's a little different than Maslow's hierarchy, where he asserts that people must have their basic needs for food, safety, shelter etc met before they can work towards self-realisation. I believe that, but Frankl showed how even people in the worst circumstances can find meaning ..Good stuff...
-
Re: smoke and mirrors
Sun, August 26, 2007 - 1:37 PMI haven't read any of Frankl's books, so I am not sure I understand you.
Are you able to tell me what he sees as the 'soul'?
Isn't the idea of finding meaning in life, opposed to the basic existentialism belief that life is meaningless, and despite our attempts to find meaning, ultimately it is futile and an illusion we all face.
-
-
Re: smoke and mirrors
Sun, August 26, 2007 - 4:08 PMI'm not an expert on existentialism in spite of the fact that I have ben reading about its various forms for a while.
It does come in various forms, exists in various fields and was developed in diferent historical circumstances so when one speaks about it, it is dificult to know which perspective they mean.
and
I'm not sure existentialism is concerned with the soul .
And I'm not sure "basic " existentialism asserts that atempts to find meaning are futile. I think they feel that we cannot predict or control many things in life . We have free will. No one owes us anything. Some of these do not believe in god, fate, serendipity, etc but they think that is good because it frees us to accept responsibility for our own happines etc.
Therefore, what we make of life is up to us. Success or failure is our responsibilty. Most existentialists believed that we have an obligation to make the most out of life. It is diferent than the nihilistic viewpoint usually ascribed to them.
Frankl existentialists are much more positive than that and Frankl believed in God . He also believed that people have the powere and responsibility to find their own meaning.
He only wrote the one book, I think. But it is a classic and it is a short easy, read.
BTW the concept of soul differs between theorists, cultures, historical circumstances etc as well .so it is dificult to discuss unless we can agree on all of those and define our terms.
(please excuse errors, my keys are sticky and I have no spell checker here, at work!)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: One question.
Tue, August 28, 2007 - 10:04 AMI think that people have a core. I think that people have certain habits that they exhibit over and over again, so if anything you can call that a core. I suppose to really be able to answer the question we have to be straight on what you mean by a "core". -
-
Re: One question.
Tue, August 28, 2007 - 8:50 PMI agree, no one has defined the word "core" and I don't think it is a very useful term anyway.
But Gorilla, you are talking about behaviors that are repeated : "habits".
Behaviors can be changed. Behaviors are a choice. How can one "choose" to have a core?
I think you meant core personality, but even then, there are arguments about nurture vs nature, and so far, evidence gives environment (nurture) as far more causal than genes (nature).
And existentialism implies choice so no matter what we are born with or what life throws at us, we still have choices about our attitudes and behaviors.
-
