Who am I?

For the past two days I have been learning the art of Action Learning Coaching. It has been an amazing experience that has lead me to consider the philosophical question - Who am I, What is the self?

The action learning involved a group of people questioning each other around a problem. This resulted in much time spent understanding the problem and understanding each others perception of it. What was fascinating was that people presenting rarely defined their actual problem. It was only through the questions of others that it was revealed to them. It was as though none of us really knew ourselves all that well - can that be possible?

There appears to be more than one self within us which is evident in the word ‘ourselves’. There is the acting self, the one who is out there in the world interacting aware only of the moment as it exists. There is also the observing self, the one who reflects upon behaviour and makes judgements about it. So far there appears to be two distinct selves, they are easily knowable and they enter into discourse regularly. So, what else is there that is unknown?

What was so fascinating in the Action Learning was that I found there was a third self present, not the acting, not the observer - there was also the unconscious self. This is the part of ourselves that is difficult to access, it pops up whenever it can and intrudes on our other selves. And we wonder, why did I do or say that? It can be hard to use our observable self to analyse our unconscious self, it can be like a room of mirrors with so many angles and distortion you start to loose track of the true image.

Action learning enabled people through the questions of others to examine the dynamics between the acting, observing and unconscious self – it provided the opportunity to see one selves as they truly are. In doing this real personal growth is within reach in an amazingly short amount of time. For participants this can be terrifying, enlightening and gratifying all at the same time.

Action learning could only provide the opportunity for insight, actual achievement of this depended somewhat upon the individual’s relationship with between their selves. We all know that relationships can take many forms and that they can impact on our lives both positively and negatively. The relationship with have between our selves is no different, do we love and nurture our self or do we abuse and degrade it. Unhealthy relationships between people can be extremely damaging, if you heard a parent speaking to a child, or a wife talking to a husband saying, ‘your not good enough’, 'you still can't get it right', 'you really suck at this', 'no one likes you', it would horrify you. How many of our observing selves make these comments to our acting self at least daily or weekly? What is the impact our relationships between ourselves is having on our ability to realise our identity completely? What would a healthy relationship with ourself look like and how would we know if we had or were moving toward a true realisation of our identity?

The Art of the Argument

There are two very different problems I come across around the idea of a philosophical argument.

1. It is not an argument – it is a discussion.
2. That arguments by definition are a competition with winners and losers.

The first problem of discussing not arguing means that some people think we don't like each other much because we are fighting. Fighting and arguing are not the sane thing. The dictionary describes it as ‘a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal’ (OneLook online dictionary).

Personally, I like to name arguments, arguments, because it makes it clear that one person is trying to convince another of their position. It means that there is every possibility that one or both people walk away with an altered perspective – how great is that. I LOVE getting an altered perspective it makes the world all shiny and new.

The second problem drives me nutty and actually makes me avoid certain people at parties. Because I am into philosophy certain people want to enter into philosophical fisty-cuffs with me. If you start out in a philosophical argument to win at all costs you can never open yourself up to something new. This means your ideas may not develop beyond what they currently are, limiting yourself is a bit sad. It is important to leave yourself open to evaluating your most fundamental ideas and beliefs, this is where the value of philosophy lies.

Of course, I am not saying that you should just be open and agree with everything but that you should be open to the possibility that there are other ideas apart from your own that are valid and useful. Use critical thinking to test your own and others ideas/ assumptions and arguments.

I could go on for ages about critical thinking but am looking forward to my next blog and posting some controversial ideas that you can argue with me about – I encourage you to alter my perspective! (see links section for a wikipedia link to more information on critical thinking)

‘I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance’ – Socrates
(and how to ask tricky questions – Socrates is famous for this)