The Five Selves Theory
Home About Artworks Comics Animations [Blog]
---
Nothing quite says "Tuesday" much like pacing around the house for a couple hours talking out your whole moral philosophy and theory for the desires of organisms.
Seriously, I thought of this whole thing where organisms start off with something called the "Natural Self," which is the part of an organism,
conscious or otherwise, that prioritizes surviving and avoiding death for as long as possible,
such as by using reproduction to either replace the dying/dead cells of an organism to keep it alive longer,
or to create a wholly new organism or group of them that will outlast itself, allowing beings like itself to continue existing long after it's gone
(which is basically the next best thing to immortality, at least to the Natural Self, since it desires survival first and foremost).
Of course, I do think that unintelligent organisms, such as cells, plants, and fungi, would have this Self as well,
since this Self embodies every organism's natural inclination to survive and reproduce.
-
When an organism becomes intelligent enough, it will usually develop the "Emotional Self," the part of the being that wishes to maximize good feelings,
as well as minimize bad feelings. The Emotional Self and the Natural Self often go hand in hand; if the being is in a situation where it feels threatened,
the Natural Self will prioritize either avoiding or apprehending the situation, and the Emotional Self, wishing to avoid fear,
will usually prioritize a similar reaction. However, there are plenty of instances where the desires of one Self contradict the desires of another Self.
I'm thinking about calling these "Self-Struggles," or something like that. This will encourage the "Willing Self," the part of an organism that takes action,
responding in a manner that it feels is most appropriate to the situation, to choose to accomodate for which desire first.
-
Of course, I should note that while every Self's goal is really only one concept, from surviving, to being happy, to making the best decisions,
there can be multiple branches of those goals that have a sort of ranking in priority. For example, if an organism were starving, sick, and in front of a wild beast,
The Natural Self would likely prioritize running from or killing the beast first, as it is the most immediate threat to the being.
Afterwards, it might want to find food to avoid starvation, as that is the next threat after the beast. Finally, it'd try to find a way to treat their illness,
as it might not me deadly, but it is still a threat to the organism's good health, and having a cold is technically closer to death than not having one,
regardless of how insignificant the condition is.
-
I should note something regarding things like love. The thing is, it's a bit of a weird aspect of the Emotional Self that can connect to other Selves.
Wanting to be around certain people stems, at least partially, from the gratification of interacting with them. It's also a reason why we grieve,
as we are distressed over not being able to do anything with them anymore. This isn't to say that relationships are solely born from self-interested desires,
as many of us still find gratification in helping other people, even at the expense of the needs of our own Selves,
because seeing a being we like in a state of happiness and good health satisfies us, and usually prompts us to postpone or even sacrifice, in part or in whole,
the desires of our own Selves, just because we find more fulfillment in accomodating for the needs of people we like.
-
I think this applies to other animals too, such as dogs and bears. Many members of both these species are very defensive over their children,
and are willing to sacrifice themselves just to keep their offspring safe, despite the fact that from the logic of the Natural Self,
they should prioritize their own survival more, as its goal is to avoid death at all costs,
with reproduction just being a way to circumvent its inevitability by having creatures like themselves continue existing after their own deaths.
Wouldn't it make more sense from a survival standpoint to keep themselves alive, and make new offspring if need be,
especially since those new children would likely outlive the first group of children anyway, simply because they were born later and thus, would die later?
Well, perhaps. But, the Emotional Selves of these animals would be greatly affected in most cases if they allowed their current children to die.
So, in spite of the logic and demands of the Natural Self, many of these bears and dogs would be willing to die if it means keeping their successors safe.
-
Now then, it's time to talk about the "Social Self," the part of the organism whose primary goal is to be accepted by other organisms, preferably ones like them.
I can't confirm if all social animals, let alone animals in general, have this Self, but I would assume that a version of it can be found in many species.
Funnily enough, I also don't really think that the Social Self prioritizes connecting with and interacting with other creatures,
since that is something that the Emotional Self wants, due to the fulfillment such interactions give it.
More accurately, the Social Self's primary concern is how the rest of society and the creatures within view the organism that it's a part of.
It wants to be liked by other people, and to avoid ostracization and rejection at all costs. This is likely where feelings like humiliation stem from,
as it is heavily based on a sense of being compromised by a socially unacceptable situation or action.
-
I think that organisms with a Social Self would have a much stronger sense of self-awareness compared to ones that don't,
simply because that Self needs to be aware of other creatures' feelings, and how its own actions might affect them,
as well as the norms of their society, and how is actions might be viewed, to maximize acceptance.
Of course, these desires are prone to causing Self-Struggles with the other Selves,
especially since social norms are prone to invalidating and/or discouraging the needs and wants of the Emotional Self, and even the Natural Self in some cases.
That being said, being aware of what other people want or expect is an amazing way to form a cohesive society, and appropriate relationships.
-
And finally, there is the "Philosophical Self," or the "Moral Self," or whatever you want to call it; I'm not sure what I will name it myself.
Anyways, the Philosophical Self is the part of a being that concerns things like morality, ideals, and other such things.
I think that its primary goal is to be, know, and act based on what is morally, logically, and/or philosophically right.
Is that a mouthful? Yes. But, philosophy's a complex thing, so I guess it makes sense. I think that this Self is the most complex of all Selves,
given that an organism's morals, ideals, and logic can vary immensely from creature to creature, and change immensely over time,
compared to the other selves. Sure, one person might grieve a lot more than another, but both will still generally see the loss of a loved one as a greatly sad thing.
However, one person's idea of what is righteous or true can be vastly different from another's, and can create all sorts of conflict between the two.
-
In fact, I think that the Philisophical Self is the most prone to contradicting the goals of all the other Selves,
given how ethics and worldviews can be very different from what creatures would want or need.
For example, someone who greatly values abstinence and finds indulgence immoral can still have strong passions for a variety of things.
Oftentimes, these contradictions in a one's morality and wants or needs can be very troubling, creating a Self-Struggle as a result.
When this occurs, the person can either feel morally wrong (which is the last thing the Philisophical Self wants) for these desires,
or frustrated or bereft, feeling constricted by their own values. This can also contradict the Natural Self,
mainly by encouraging the organism to do things that may postpone or completely deny the accommodation of its needs,
such as through sacrificing life and limb for what the believe to be a greater cause, or through things such as religious fasting.
Please understand that I am not condemning these things; I'm simply explaining how the Philisophical Self can contradict the Natural One.
-
However, I'd argue that this Self is one of the most important Selves to exist, as it gives the organisms that have it a strong desire to learn right and wrong.
This Self can make creatures want to know more about the world, not just because of the satisfaction of knowing more things (a trait of the Emotional Self),
but because being right can make the organism feel secure under the belief that they are correct. Of course, it can also encourage a sense of close-mindedness,
especially if the person strongly fears being socially compromised for admitting that they might not be entirely correct.
It's also very common for people to be very extreme in their values, in ways that compromise the wants and needs of others if applied.
But, I think that if the organism has the right state of mind, and enough humility to change and improve their worldview,
then their Philisophical Self can make them into an amazing being, one that is willing to help others and do what is just,
even if it provides them no emotional gratification, simply because it's the right thing to do. I'd argue that while many issues have risen from this Self's goals,
the impact that its existence has made is a net good, one that has allowed many people and civilizations to become far greater and kinder than it could be otherwise.
-
MY GOODNESS, this was a long typing session, but I really wanted to just explain all of this. Again, this is a theory, and one made by a 17 year-old goof at that.
I don't think that this idea is objectively true, and there are likely plenty of aspects of psychology that contradict these ideas,
but I just wanted to get this out there before I forgot. I also need to mention that a person is actually five identities inhabiting one body.
Rather, I'm trying to say that, according to this theory, a human's mind is comprised of five central pieces (barring memories and general information),
all with their own goals and desires, that join together to create a fully-fledged sentient being.
So, uhmmmmm... Yeah, I'm just gonna type about weird hyper-fixation stuff on the next entry.
---