Really? Is That Why You Shouldn't Change!?

[The Obedient Listner]

[The following is an attempt to add some value to this community, it's not a question. In case my theories are validated & accepted, I'll write a series of articles, regarding practical personal development.]

 

It's tiring to hear it repeatedly due to its ambiguity; perhaps the huge banality within it.

I am talking about the statement: "just be yourself".

Did you ever wonder why you should be "yourself"? Or what exactly does it mean? 

 

Maybe it's the collective traits that we possess, our attitude and behaviour along with the actual authentic personality we were born with.

W-wait, what? .. Born with?

Obviously not. We have always changed and grown past the person we think we are, ever since birth. The experiences that we had been through developed us, strengthened our wit and moulded the present mature individuals, whom we are now.

As you see, we are always changing, there's no fixed person that you can call "my authentic self". This simple realisation leads us to the following conclusions:

It's not true, to say that there's somebody inside you to discover, your true self is not concealed. There's no such thing as "just be you" to locate, you have to create it.

 

 

To create it? does that entail that the meaning of the statement was referring to the person you aspire to be? In other words, rather than trying to find someone inside you, make the person. Craft a set of attributes and adapt to a certain mindset. 

 

Aha! So I should choose? Then I want to be the ideal self, the perfect self! 

 

 

I will leave you with this quote to convince you otherwise:

Quote

The perfect being, huh? There is no such thing as perfect in this world. That may sound cliché, but it’s the truth. The average person admires perfection and seeks to obtain it. But, what’s the point of achieving perfection? There is none. Nothing. Not a single thing. I loathe perfection! If something is perfect, then there is nothing left. There is no room for imagination. No place left for a person to gain additional knowledge or abilities. Do you know what that means? For scientists such as ourselves, perfection only brings despair. It is our job to create things more wonderful than anything before them, but never to obtain perfection. A scientist must be a person who finds ecstasy while suffering from that antimony. In short, the moment that foolishness left your mouth and reached my ears, you had already lost. Of course, that’s assuming you are a scientist after all.

-Tite Kubo

 

 

It seems that demanding the ideal personality isn't limited to a certain degree, it's like an irrational number. You will never be perfectly accurate to write the number π*. There will always be more space for precision. There's no perfect personality to embody, hence you can always improve. Indeed, that's based upon the watertight arguments, provided by the quote above.

 

Next time somebody tells you, "just be yourself", it doesn't imply to remain nyctophobic*, but to what you wish to make of yourself.

 

 

 

* π is the symbol "Pi", referring to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. An infinite decimal number.

*Nyctophobic is a phobia characterised by a severe fear of darkness.

Edited August 29, 2016 by The Obedient Listner

[Joyboy]

For me 'just be yourself' is be true to your natural desires and act upon it.

[The Obedient Listner]

@7oo13ad I partially agree with what you said, what if your natural desires are neurotic?

Say for example, naturally you are a hypochondriac person. Although it's absolutely a bad condition with unnecessary needs, should you resist and change it, if possible? or accept it as your "authentic self"? 

What if you are naturally a sociopath, does it justify you "acting upon" sadistic needs?

I would argue against the latter.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Forcibly conjure a content and calm state of mind. Do this despite your own suffering, anger, happiness (so as to not act rash), and sadness. The self is only known to the self because of the awareness of doing. The mind infers that the act of doing accentuates a doer (who is you). A limb may be separated, but the self remains. A portion of brain may die, but the self remains. All that is external to the self (brain, limbs, and external things such such as pencils and buttons) are potential tools of the self. The awareness of doing is a sort of mirror which allows the self to see itself just as the eyes require a mirror to see themselves. The doer needs a tool so as to have direct sight of itself because it only "sees" forward.

Most habitual actions are the result of addiction to action for the sake of action rather than usefulness and purpose. This is easily fixable if you keep track of every movement you make and discontinue the non-essential. The key is to do nothing that is of no use. Keep track of all your actions and to make sure that they are efficient responses and stimuluses which result in a beneficial response. Every response is a stimulus. Discontinue the non-essential. Basically, let your actions be a response or result of the situation at hand unless the intention is to trigger a specific response. This exercise is very precise, but begin when you are nearly motionless at first and graduate to more intense levels of action.

If you wish to have some down time, sit in a quiet room and do this meditation I constructed. Do not become so focused on one sense that you do not notice all of them. Have equal attention to all of your senses. Become distracted by one and distribute the attention you do have to all of them by allowing yourself to be distracted by each of them.The same should be done with emotion. Do not become so focused on one emotion that you do not notice all of them. Have equal attention to all of your emotions. Become distracted by one and distribute the attention you do have to all of them by allowing yourself to be distracted by each of them. Forcibly induce an unconditionally calm and content state of mind during suffering and behold as the cocktail of emotions combine to form a orderly mind despite their differences.

 

[Gabriel David Gomez]

With emotions, you find that the one which seemed so much like fire, is actually light when you do not create your own fire and observe it as it is.

[The Obedient Listner]

@Gabriel David Gomez, I'm honestly, quite grateful for sharing your perspective on the matter. However, it seems to me, that it was merely a form of spiritual enlightenment [Which I'm not a fan of] rather than the low conscious dilemma of being told "be yourself".

My intention was to clarify what it means to be yourself within the realm of practicality and usefulness to succeed in life. And by success here, I am talking about the general definition; more or less, the achievement in the realm of financial, psychological and relationships terms.

Often, I hear these words even when I read a book on investment: it will frequently point out that you should pick the plan that suits your personality and is compatible with your attitude. So I speculated on whether there's a "fixed self" to take into account while making major decisions.

Should I avoid complex plans because I was described before as impulsive?

If I act calm for weeks & months, can I outline calmness as a part of my authentic self, or is it fake because I used to be emotional?

In this case scenario, is getting rid of impulsiveness equivalent of not being yourself? 

Edited August 30, 2016 by The Obedient Listner

[key]

Look and see;

What is authentic?

What is ideal?

What is spontaneous?

[Joyboy]

Quote

 

Socrates: Everyone wants to tell you what to do and what’s good for you. They don’t want you to find your own answers, they want you to believe theirs.

Dan Millman: Let me guess, and you want me to believe yours.

Socrates: No, I want you to stop gathering information from the outside and start gathering it from the inside.

 

That's all I want to say.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

I'm not sure if you researched enough about this topic. I didn't offer any spiritual advice. It's actually psychological advice. I mentioned information about the self because, if it is you you search for and to be... you shouldn't make the mistake millions are making by searching for something more complex than they are. The self is deeper than the limbs and the mind to the extent that it controls them. Limb may be amputated, but the self remains. Knowledge may be forgotten but the self remains. The fact of it all so the the self is the command center and free will (contrary to popular opinion, there is free will). The problem with most people is that they attempt to control the self, though the acting of controlling it implies that the self is already in use and indeed in control. This is why the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. People blame the self when they fail to accomplish something so they try harder to direct it though even that act required the self, which remains in obvious working and functional order. Any action is based on the first movement of self. If you cannot control something, it is not of your tools (such as the body and the mind or a wrench). So, when being yourself, you're not that complex if you boil yourself down to the basics. Personality is pure entertainment and attraction in the survival of the fittest to gain allies etc. The mind is used for knowledge which acts as hands to guide the body in successful action. Knowledge is like map, the eyes of the mind read it and then the body acts it out. But the self continues to be without our effort. So the actual way of being yourself is not to attempt, but to allow and simply direct things intellectually toward the good of all in this world.

Everything you are aware of is the past. By the time your brain finishes processing details of an event you experience, it will have already become the past. Therefore this is a vivid dream involving all of the senses, a present awareness of a former present (which is not the past). So, naturally, anything you are aware of yourself being is of the past also because you must first become aware that you are such a thing. Besides, letting yourself be and focusing on the task at hand leaves you without much to stand up for and a lot of open schedule. Don't define yourself if you can help it. Definitions, trends, fashions, etc. are limitations and strict perimeters. Bruce Lee said, "Set patterns, incapable of adaptability, of pliability, only offer a better cage."

He also said to let no limitation be your limitation. So, by allowing yourself to be, you avoid caging yourself with something to stand for and to be defined by. Simply allow yourself to be. You are in constant change.

[The Obedient Listner]

@7oo13ad The quote changed my perceptive on many issues, I'm grateful for your time. 

Honestly, I asked the question because I was worried about relationships. I was told before to be myself. If somebody connects with me romantically, she will end up falling in love with somebody who isn't me. A person whom I'm pretending to be, thereby fake.

However, my personal answer will be no. Just because I've decided to change for somebody, doesn't imply that I am not being me. 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

@Gabriel David Gomez True, I haven't really researched the topic in detail. You can consider me a newbie if you wish. 

Now I really want to confess, I am really impressed by the high quality response. The answer was frankly dense with information and takes time to digest. 

 

Quote

Personality is pure entertainment and attraction in the survival of the fittest to gain allies etc. The mind is used for knowledge which acts as hands to guide the body in successful action. Knowledge is like map, the eyes of the mind read it and then the body acts it out. But the self continues to be without our effort. 

My image of what is the personality is quite naive. You perfectly categorised the constitutes of a "self". Whereas my ideas lacked introspection and a keen reflection regarding the self. 

 

Quote

 Besides, letting yourself be and focusing on the task at hand leaves you without much to stand up for and a lot of open schedule. Don't define yourself if you can help it. Definitions, trends, fashions, etc. are limitations and strict perimeters. Bruce Lee said, "Set patterns, incapable of adaptability, of pliability, only offer a better cage.

Absolutely! All I am doing is constructing shallow structures on what it means to be yourself. Perhaps I should focus on detaching my thoughts on who I am and just be that person. Let go of ideas and erase its presence altogether. As you said, it's constraining you only. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by The Obedient Listner

[Gabriel David Gomez]

After experiencing much, I was surprised at how much I already knew. Many of the habits I thought were useless were actually useful. Many of the habits I thought were useful were actually useless. I would often stretch my arms and I thought it was a bad habit, I would often conform to society also, but I found that this is useful. I repositioned my body so the blood circulated by instinct when i stretched and I maintained allies in the position i was in when i conformed. I merely protected myself. But I only held the conformity on the exterior, the interior is completely intellectual. You need not become as you display.

[The Obedient Listner]

@Gabriel David Gomez Your ideology is similar to that of Elliott Hulse, with a linguistic touch. 

[Gabriel David Gomez]

I researching his quotes right now. Also, I actually found that I "rediscovered" much of what ancient sages and philosophers found before I even heard their quotes. Like Aristotle and others. I actually found the answer to the question, "Do we live in the best of all possible worlds." Its quite simple, nothing impossible has ever happened, therefore every event is logical and nature itself favors logic. But since everything shares logic in common, that is what makes comparison possible. For instance, you can find any wisdom in the universe if you know enough about two things. Planting and reproduction. Everything in the universe is based off of them. Even they have something in common with each other. A man plants a seed into the womb who is the earth (mother earth), and out comes the fruit of the womb. This even reveals etymology (the study of how words developed). It reveals that there is a link to all things and that the foundation of creation is logic, or truth. This is absolute truth. That there is a connection between all of creation. Of course I have no idea how to submit my finds and win an award but I'm very close to publishing, I even posted it on a social media site and screenshotted it and saved it so that I could prove that the earliest date of its existence is with me.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Do not attempt to control yourself, let yourself roam free and behold as you find yourself being no wild monster; you are level headed and logical.

Thats something i just wrote.

[The Obedient Listner]

 

@Gabriel David Gomez If you haven't already, make a YouTube channel like @Leo Gura. Your propositions may attract a fan base under your name. 

The world being fundamentally logic?  That's new. I mean logic is not a tangible thing, it's the science that deals with reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

So I am not sure what to say here, however I totally agree with the fact that the universe works upon logic. Does that make logic the core of reality or a descriptor of a deeper truth?

Is it just a map or the land itself? The usual definition of logic favours the former, just a map. 

 

Good luck with the publication, I wish you all the best.  

Edited August 31, 2016 by The Obedient Listner

[Gabriel David Gomez]

Listen closely. When you smell you take in a piece of what is smelled for processing. Now, just as a movie is played by taking multiple pictures and playing them quickly and chronologically, the five senses are each done the same way. Even when you see, you cannot have sight of what you see without something of what you see or else you would logically be empty and could not see what you see. With sound, it is the same way. So, basically I have shown you the similarities between the five senses just as I showed you the similarities between reproduction and planting. This is by using my "map". The great thing about maps is that they are tangible. The great thing about concepts and thought in general is that, they too (despite popular belief) are tangible. A concept is merely a combination of images and ideas gathered from the external existence to form an image by "copying and pasting" so to speak. Therefore the image exists but not what it represents. That is why nothing is the thing it represents. But since though is tangible, and a concept is as much a form of thought as truth is, truth is also tangible. Therefore a map, having language by pictures (which is what a font is, only a picture with a fancy name like symbol), is tangible just as symbols are tangible. In fact, if you make a new alphabet and call the man the planter, the woman the earth and the baby the plant... you can display porn and gain wisdom from that situation to know how to plant. This means that everything is a map in a different language which shows information about all of existence. All of existence is guidance (a map) about all of existence. Therefore, all that existence has in common is that tangible (it may be hard to accept but its true) truth. This may be why the bible calls the christ (who is the truth) the firstborn of creation. In fact, I'll speak in a different manner to help you understand this much in a little amount of time.

 

If you build a building on a lie, what it holds up is a contradiction.

If you build building on the truth, what it holds up is logical and can therefore exist. 

 

Therefore it is truth which is the firm foundation (as the bible describes it). It has been to my knowledge that the bible is not a book of myths but of knowledge. Also, nothing is never truly nothing. Even the ink I type with (or whatever the computer uses) is actually something which displays the word "nothing". It is my thinking which suggests that the big bang theorists took the thought they contemplated about "nothing" with as though it were literally nothing. In doing so they errored. 

 

So, to answer your question, because a concept is the polar opposite of the truth and the truth (even by aforementioned statements) as well as concepts (because of the example of how concepts are formed) have tangibility... the truth is a map as well as land itself. But it is the foundation. So truth is separate from the land but the land is build on that foundation so that it must abide by it. This also explains ( and i have rediscovered something having rethought about this topic) why the messiah is the "way"... because a map is guidance.

I have something to offer you by the way... if this isn't information which gets out to the public eye within the next five years... maybe you should expand upon it and write it better and place it where someone can see it. Cause this kind of thing will make creationists not feel so lonely.

[Gabriel David Gomez]

So the basics is that concepts have mass and are tangible, therefore their polar opposite (truth) being something which nature abides by, is also tangible. That being because Anything something physical abides by must itself have shape, and nothing conceptual has taken shape (existence) because only the idea of it is based on the logic of existence (that because a concept is an imagination type structure built by taking multiple images so to speak and forming a new one by copying and pasting).

Therefore the truth is what physicality must abide by and, because even water slips through a solid, truth is obviously as tangible as its polar opposite.

 

The truth is both the map and the foundation of the land itself. Therefore the land shares its pattern and basics in common. This is why you can find facts about all of existence using only a portion of it.