BEYOND THE BLOG

I've moved to anthonynorth.com

  • Introduction

    I've now moved to a new website and blog. Click 'Anthony North', below.
  • Stats:

    • 711,475 hits
  • Meta

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Calendar

    July 2008
    M T W T F S S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  

HOW TO EXPLAIN YOU

Posted by anthonynorth on July 8, 2008

Could it be that credible paranormal theories often fail because we don’t understand what an ‘individual’ is? You are an individual. But how do you know this? What is there about ‘you’ that makes you unique – a one off? This is a subject that has often fascinated me. And when ever I look into it, ‘you’ disappear. You know you are ‘you’ because society tells you so.
We live in a world of individuality, where there is nothing above ‘you’. No God, no wider influence, no meaning above your own values.

Experience, though, says different.

‘You’ are defined by the culture to which you belong. Social pressures help to mould your way through life. Even your genetic structure in not yours – it is an amalgam of that of your parents.
‘You’ are not as individual as you think. And I am quite sure that it goes far deeper than this. And I am sure of this through researching the paranormal, where the mind that is essential to ‘you’ can appear far more adaptive and ‘communal’ than we presently understand.

What are the essentials of ‘you’?

Well, a big part of ‘you’ are your emotions. These define much of your character, responses and ideals. Yet, whilst the reasons for emotional displays and stimulus may be specific to ‘you’, this is only part of the story.
Regardless of why a particular emotion exists, the simple fact is, emotion ‘types’ seem to be of the ‘species’ rather than ‘you’. Love, hate, sorrow, joy, fear and the rest were not invented by ‘you’, but by the species. Put simply, they are not yours alone.

Personality holds similar problems.

Carl Jung formulated the idea of a collective unconscious populated by ‘archetypes’ that are expressed in mythology. Yet, when you deconstruct this type of ‘archetype’, what you end up with are specific character types.
These include the child, trickster, sage, judge, hero, etc. And together they form the various character fragments within everyone’s mind, from the judge (conscience) to the trickster – that element of ‘you’ that varies from the impish to the absolute evil. Yet their collectivity suggests they are not of ‘you’.

Much of ‘you’ is beyond conscious thought.

‘You’ do things in certain ways that are not of ‘you’, but of the species. We know these impulses as instinct. Beyond scientific understanding and beyond ‘you’ it is nevertheless a big part of you.
So as we can see, ‘you’ – i.e. those parts of ‘you’ that are specific to ‘you’ – do not actually exist in a fundamental form. Rather, I think the best way to understand ‘you’ is to accept ‘you’ are not yours.
Rather, what we call the individual is an amalgam of outside influences. How that amalgam is shaped IS specific to ‘you’, so, yes, you are ‘you’ in the final analysis. But how you became ‘you’ is far more than ‘you’ alone.
Why is this important? Well, the biggest influence upon you is how your culture defines ‘you’. And the present culture is materialist, atheist and consumerist, all of which require ‘you’ to only find meaning in yourself.
Meaning above ‘you’ is a definite ‘no’ in today’s world. The above suggests this is not true. And it only exists because they have convinced you that you is really ‘you’. And once we look at the individual in this more communal, inter-related way, theories of paranormal ‘intrusion’ into ‘you’ begin to make sense.

© Anthony North, July 2008

34 Responses to “HOW TO EXPLAIN YOU”

  1. And now this is a part of me! Great stuff, Anthony. Reminds me of the importance of being good to all that is around me.

  2. Hi Sandy,
    Thanks for that, and I’m convinced that such an interpretation of the more esoteric subjects I cover would lead to a general rediscovery of such connections – which could only be good for us.

  3. You are what you are and not what you could be or should be or will be. Yet you are what you believe even when shown that you is not what you thought. 🙂

  4. Hi Goesdownbitter,
    But to know what you are is to know what you ain’t, as long as you ain’t what you know you are, ‘cos if you do, then you ain’t what you know you isn’t 😉

  5. Selma said

    Just confirms for me that we are all connected and should remember that on a more regular basis. It might make the world a better place.

  6. Hi Selma,
    That’s a sentiment I share very deeply.

  7. Brian said

    Anthony, I could have written this. ‘You’ is a very fluid concept when it comes to personality. But when you think about, being attracted to some people and not others leads you to believe that there is something else that links people together, beyond the known senses.

  8. Hi Brian,
    So very true. There is so much yet to learn behind the facade of what we think we are.

  9. alexjc38 said

    Another thought-provoking post, Anthony! For some reason, it reminded me of some lines from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian (and managed to find them on the net):

    Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t NEED to follow ME, You don’t NEED to follow ANYBODY! You’ve got to think for yourselves! You’re ALL individuals!
    The Crowd: Yes! We’re all individuals!
    Brian: You’re all different!
    The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
    Man in crowd: I’m not…
    The Crowd: Shhhhh!

  10. Garbage in, garbage out. We are the way we are due to our exposure to this thing called life. I have always thought we are merely creatures of habit. Little ants milling about smartly. Even if we aren’t. Have a great day Anthony. 🙂

  11. Hi Alex,
    I love those lines. I often use the analogy of our young expressing their individuality by wearing identical fashions.

    Hi Sandee,
    I’ve often thought similar myself. We seem to follow culture so closely – even the con that we don’t, and we are our own people.

  12. Twilight said

    I’ll have to throw my pet subject into the mix here, AN !

    Astrology. For aeons astrologers (once astronomers too) have linked the way in which an individual’s personality develops with the cycles of the planets, and in particular how the planets stood at the moment of an individual’s birth. The planets were attributed with traits based on archetypes of gods and goddesses.
    Why? How? Who knows. All I know is that more times than not it seems to work, and it depends on using the exact positions of the planets. It isn’t infallible, environment and many other factors have to be thrown into the mix.

    Your theory still fits, AN. All the elements of human personality are available to all of us, all the time – astrology tries to define how each of us is likely to put some of the elements into play in our own life.

    Astrology is much maligned, but for those who delve deeply enough into it, it is, if nothing else, a valuable way of understanding oneself and others, and it gives a clear feeling of everything in the universe being interconnected.

  13. Hi Twilight,
    Yes, the above hypothesis does give a remarkable universality to character types, and it could well move forward the suggestion to there being a reality to Astrology.
    Who knows. One day … and despite my occasional scepticism, it certainly should not be ignored.

  14. myar1967 said

    I agree with you regarding “you” definition. I think all the religions
    wants to make your “you” definition with different stories.

  15. Hi Myar1967,
    Very true. But not only religion. All societies, I think, want to stamp their culture on who we are. Religion is simply one way of doing so.

  16. Chris said

    Hi Anthony,
    What are your thoughts on this one?
    “Well the biggest influence upon you is how your culture defines ‘you’ and how ‘you’ define your culture.
    I agree with your perception of our overall present culture being materialistic, atheist and consumerist but the influence this has on me is to strive as hard as I can against each of them.

    Another possible, significant influence in how we become ‘you’ are animals. Those of us who have a great degree of love for our pets, which I believe is shaped by their unconditional love for us, teaches us that not everything important in the world is based on ‘the big three’ (and I’ve left children out of the equation here as well beacuse I was trying to focus outside of humanity).

    I guess when you sum it all up it means that, “I am ‘you’ and ‘you’ are me, to some degree!”.

  17. Hi Chris,
    Absolutely. I state it here, I think:

    ‘Rather, what we call the individual is an amalgam of outside influences. How that amalgam is shaped IS specific to ‘you’, so, yes, you are ‘you’ in the final analysis. But how you became ‘you’ is far more than ‘you’ alone.’

    So I certainly don’t deny your premise. We ARE individuals. No doubt about it. What I’m interested in, here, is what else are we, below the level of individuality. Do we connect – become communal – at a deeper level of awareness.
    I think we do, and despite the individual actually existing, those things that form him are maybe not individual. As such, the deeper we go, the less defined the individual becomes.

  18. Thought I’d add my shilling’s worth. 😉

    Rose

    xo

  19. Hi Rose,
    And a marvellous shilling’s worth it is, too 🙂

  20. Dan said

    Hi Anthony!
    I believe that even though we are similar in many ways because of our shared culture and indoctrination, just as every snowflake is different, we are all totally and absolutely unique in everyway…including our beliefs. I believe this is true because we have all experienced life in a totally unique way. Even though we may share many of the same beliefs with others, they are never exactly the same. In a church full of Christians for example, every Christian there has a totally unique idea of what Christ means to them.
    Personally, I prefer to follow a more Noetic (subjective, internal) path to knowing. I try to rely on my own intuition to help discern, guide, and sift through the seemingly infinite amount of exoteric (scientific, conventional) knowledge that exists. I am constantly seeking a resonance, or “aha” feeling I get when I hear, read, or experience something and I recognize that a couple pieces of my life puzzle suddenly fit together. Any knowledge gained in this way becomes part of my core beliefs. For me, this is a sacred experience, or divine revelation if you will, that leads to greater spiritual awakening, and I believe that this spiritual awakening, or feeling of connectedness, is what life is all about.
    I also like what Stan Grof had to say on the subject “Our materialist cultural paradigm does not support our spiritual awakening. In fact it ridicules it and pathologizes it. But the only thing that can stand up to and reform the dominant scientific paradigm, as well as the dogma of religion, is direct spiritual experience.”

  21. Hi Dan,
    Yes, as I say in the essay, we ARE individuals, in that we are an amalgam of various communal traits. But certainly the experiences we have from this point on are our own uniqueness. This isn’t in doubt. I’m simply trying to look beyond and get to a deeper level.
    Interestingly, though, you speak of a uniqueness born out of a spirituality, which is surely also something above the individual?

  22. Linda G. said

    Hi Anthony,
    Very interesting essay. I agree with your overall proposition regarding society’s cultural influences. I guess in the Jungian sense I must be the Rebel, for I have always innately followed my own path in life & abhor trends. They permeate our culture (the USA) to an inordinate degree. And as the “super power” (really the world’s police force) our culture rains on the rest of our planet. I can easily understand why so many societies dislike/hate the “American brand/logo” we project.

    I would love your feedback on this:
    After the September 11th attacks on our country- overnight- the communal sense of our nation changed. We are usually very divided, liberal vs conservative with the mass of moderates purposely ignored. Then we “magically” became as one, pulled together by our collective sadness, loss of innocence and the horror of that day. It was a palpable sensation- rather eerie really- but truly sensed. I am speaking as a lifelong New Yorker- perhaps those in other States did not feel this way, but I think overall the USA did.

    Of course the communal feeling could not last & today we are even more divided as a nation than before the attack.

    By the way, I have always been an observer rather than a participant in others lives. Except of course for those I truly love/loved. I have felt great satisfaction in being so.

    Best regards… I am looking forward to more of your thought provoking work.

  23. Hi Linda,
    I tend to be with you regarding the Rebel. I try to put him away, but he isn’t having it 🙂
    Following 9/11 I feel there was a great sense of collective grief. Regarding the impression of America around the world, I don’t think this is against Americans, per se, but the politics that can so easily arise, and the Big Biz mentality which sometimes seems endemic.
    Both, I feel, are due to a political system more geared to business than people – and I know many Americans feel this same concern.

  24. mallorypaige said

    very unique and interesting article. There aren’t enough people out there willing to take the time into exploring such topics.

  25. Hi Mallorypaige,
    Thanks for that. Yes, I agree, there isn’t enough research on such subjects. Yet they are fascinating.

  26. David Price said

    i am me as you are he as we are all together…

  27. Hi David,
    And we’ll all be Walruses together, too 😉

  28. People with head trauma that results in aphasia, ataxia, or impairment of recognition are living proof that we are far too comfortable with our “selves.”

    A family member asks a neurologist, “But he’s going to get better, right?” The neurologist’s response is, “Better is relative. He’s somebody else now. If you care about him, then you owe it to him to get to know who he is now.” Nobody who receives such an answer will ever think about personality or identity the same way again.

    Check out The Echo Maker by Richard Powers.

  29. Aleta said

    I think that while on this physical level “I” am far too busy being “Me” to be “You”. all the other stuff is variable. On the hand, there is only “I”.

  30. Chris said

    Good Morning Anthony,
    I believe that ‘communal’ awareness exists at every level, from the smallest (microcosmic) to the largest (macrocosmic). At a sub-conscious level I think that people ‘tap’ into this ‘awareness’ (call it ‘the field’, ‘the ether’ or even ‘the force’, if you like Star Wars ;)). Ask me to ‘prove’ it and I can’t, ask me to ‘feel’ it and I can.
    Linda G’s (Hi Linda!!) comment about the September 11th attacks changing the communal sense of her nation I think ties in with this (and I also think it had a substantial global impact as well).

    If you refer back to a comment that you made to me when we were discussing your Psychic Syndrome post, I think that Linda’s perception fits in perfectly:
    “I’ve often thought that adversity is one of the most defined routes to becoming psychic. It forces a person into their deep mind to rationalise their life, and down there, they meet something else.”

    This all starts to also tie in with consensus realities, a potential ‘God’-force, which you have also mentioned before,and of course with your Cosmic Synchronicity post.

    Do you ever get the feeling that we’re getting somewhere? (kudos to you)

    Cheers,

    Chris (I hope that nobody refers to me as a sycophant :))

  31. I am but a psyche radius emanating outward from the universal consciousness nucleus. I do not exist, neither do you. I am only the mystery experiencing itself through gazillions of manifestations of remote conscious awareness. We are all illusions of all that is.

  32. Good morning Davidcarney,
    This is very true. So often trauma or illness can seem to lead to a totally different personality.

    Hi Aleta,
    Perhaps it is this culturally imposed need to be constantly busy that does a good job of hiding what is underneath.

    Hi Chris,
    Yes, it would be my contention that, if a ‘holistic’ system is achieveable to partly ‘explain’ existence, then it would have to tie in with everything. But this is barely touching the surface, me thinks. There’s a long way to go.
    As for your last line, I find this word to be a tool used by detractors, and quite worthless. As for me, the past week has had its usual chorus of insults. I think you already know of one – the award of the week must go to another commenter on another site who suggested I be taken out into a large field and shot!

    Hi Johnnypeepers,
    The language is different – perhaps even the degree of belief involved – but there’s a similiarity here.

  33. You wrote yourself sometime ago at TDG that “being aware of our insignificance is what makes us significant”. This reasoning applies aswell here: being aware that we’re not as special or unique as we thought is precisely what makes us special and unique.

    Yes, my genes, my culture and my enviroment are “external” forces that shape me and endowe me of several traits, talents and vices alike. But as you and everybody above state, the choice that I make on the manner in which I use those traits, either to reach my highest potential or to let myself be overcomed by the inherent burdens of life, that choice is the basis of my entire freedom as a conscious individual. I am thus because I choose it.

    “To be or not to be…” right? 😉

  34. Hi Red,
    Absolutely true. And my purpose here is not to deny the individual, existentialism and all. Choice is important and personal. My purpose, I suppose, is simply to show that we are also more than our individuality below what we are.
    I am ‘me’, yes! But I’m built upon foundations of communality.

Leave a comment