Thread: More psychology: How important is a continuation of consciousness?

Originally Posted by Threeofeight

Does anyone understand my issue here? Sleep is the biggest gap in consciousness that I know of. And ultimately my question is lucidity related. How different would life be if all if these "Me's" would merge into a single continuation of "Me".

I think your life would be way different, should you reduce all those "Me's" to a single persona, and if that persona is a reflection of who you really are (and not just another false or artificially convenient -- and probably inferior -- construct), then you will likely find that difference most agreeable. You also might find that that single continuation of "You" will be able to operate just as well, if not better, in various social situations than those previous, targeted constructs.

Sleep might not be as much of a gap in consciousness than you might think: sleep may be simply another form of consciousness. Given that we dream throughout the night and are also aware enough of our environment to respond to, say, an emergency by waking up, we really are still conscious when asleep. Unconsciousness, as in, say, being anesthetized or physically knocked out, is a very different thing than sleep. Perhaps "sleeping you" is simply another form of lesser consciousness, and lucidity reflects its being merged with that "single continuation" You? Something to think about, at least.

Is this not something that you find out when you get older in this world?

Yes it is, provided you have the sense to allow yourself to find it out!

I would like to think that I understand the issue. But first things first, good questions!

So all these "you" is essentially a form of roleplay. And once we find one aspect of ourselves, we will sooner or later discover the shadowside to that first found side (or the sunny side for that matter). To what we found ourselves to be. If we spend longer timeperiods in a certain role or "mode", we then stumble up on the very issue that is all about our inner balance. And that can be kind of a strain to find that as we project a role that we have sort of get stucked in for a while. So the best way to try to balance ourself to our environment is basically to try to gradually adapt to a role that you can find match best with what you interpret others to do/act in that environment. And then build from there, wheter you like to stay in that role or expand or tweek it even more in your own way. So you really dont need to lose "you", since it basically about learning new ways of being, and yet you always will have that inner knowing of who you are beyond your social role if you really want to.

I think trying to unify everything is going about the issue in the wrong way. These different personas have formed for a reason. Rather than trying to respond to everything the same, it's better to make a habit of thinking on two different levels. On one level you're going with your persona, but on the other you're overseeing that role as an aloof third party. In instances where you recognize there is an issue with a role's behavior, correct yourself as needed. The only thing that needs to be unified is a set of ground rules or broader principles you use to base your behavior on. The principals should be broad and flexible enough to allow for modularity in how you choose to behave. These personas are just a tool for behaving in productive ways, so how effectively you use it depends entirely on you. They normally seem to arise naturally, but once you're aware of what's going on, you can actively participate in the process.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I think your life would be way different, should you reduce all those "Me's" to a single persona, and if that persona is a reflection of who you really are (and not just another false or artificially convenient -- and probably inferior -- construct), then you will likely find that difference most agreeable. You also might find that that single continuation of "You" will be able to operate just as well, if not better, in various social situations than those previous, targeted constructs.

Sleep might not be as much of a gap in consciousness than you might think: sleep may be simply another form of consciousness. Given that we dream throughout the night and are also aware enough of our environment to respond to, say, an emergency by waking up, we really are still conscious when asleep. Unconsciousness, as in, say, being anesthetized or physically knocked out, is a very different thing than sleep. Perhaps "sleeping you" is simply another form of lesser consciousness, and lucidity reflects its being merged with that "single continuation" You? Something to think about, at least.



Yes it is, provided you have the sense to allow yourself to find it out!

I am so happy to see your response Sageous!

You all have provided so much substance that I might forget to respond to a few points. Hopefully we can always come back here should the need arise.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I think your life would be way different, should you reduce all those "Me's" to a single persona, and if that persona is a reflection of who you really are (and not just another false or artificially convenient -- and probably inferior -- construct), then you will likely find that difference most agreeable. You also might find that that single continuation of "You" will be able to operate just as well, if not better, in various social situations than those previous, targeted constructs.

I really like what you said here. I've found myself losing a central Me several times since I made this thread.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting to merge all the personas into a single continueous state of mind. As in some sense opposed to some suggestions made on this thread that does not mean putting on different personas in different situations. But to synchronize all of the learned behaviors that one picked up in life into an agreeable single whole (I have some trouble explaining what I have in mind). This means to scave off all the lesser constructs and disagreeable sides. And one continues to grow and adapt in new environments. But the big difference is that what grows and learns is a less fragmented sense of self.

In reality, there is definetely no clear-cut division between selfs and not-selfs.

But in other words maintaining a sense of self. Should in theory dissolve the need for a gestalt in different personalities arising in different situations . Perhaps a gestalt is needed but I do not suspect this is the case. Because when a single personality is good enough in all situations there is no need to swap faces so to say. I wouldn't go to say that a personality is ever actually perfect. But a growing individual can take what is good from new situations. And it has no need to engage in what the individual experiences as not good. It can either correct behaviors in other or it lets it be for what it is and choose it's battles carefully. But there's no need to adapt where it doesn't feel it is absolutely necessary.

I'll think I just let this be for now and come back to this thread when I have more to say

watch porn then see if your conscious is still thinking like that then see if you an do a complete 180

Hey Threeofeight (I remember your previous incarnation as Dthoughts). I think the different personae are a necessary adaptation to the ever-changing nature of life. I think you NEED to be a somewhat different person when you're playing football for instance, or when you find yourself on a battlefield, than when you're making out with your girlfriend or talking to Grandma. I don't think you would want to be the same person in each of those situations, and I don't think it would be helpful.

I also think if you would be able to examine what happens to a persona when you shift modes of life, from one activity to another, I think you'll find it's isn't so much that one mask just disappears and is replaced with another, so much as the mask you have on sort of morphs - changes form to accommodate what you need to be for that activity. Sort of like those glasses that can automatically darken into sunglasses when you go outside, You wouldn't want them to always be dark, or to always be transparent - it works much better when they can morph from one to the other depending on the situation.

I think if there were such a thing as a single, all-purpose persona, that it would be awkward and cumbersome. Actually I don't think there can be any such thing - sometimes you need to be strong and tough, and sometimes you need to be tender and vulnerable - how could any single persona possibly do both all the time? I think it's absolutely necessary to be able to morph from one to the other when needed.

I also agree with snoop that there are 2 levels - there's the persona on the surface - that's your user interface that you show the world, and behind it is the deeper consciousness that is aware there's a mask in front of it. That deeper consciousness doesn't change, but it does shift from mask to mask (or rather cause the mask to morph when and how needed). The user interface needs to be flexible to merge and be functional in different situations.


So I don't think it's any kind of a problem that we do go through these surface changes. There is a continuity of the deep consciousness that's maintained through all the persona changes.