Defining The 'Self'

My life, starting from when I finished school, has been a continuous array of moving from one point to another in pursuit of something to define myself by. The first few years the discovery was mostly in search of what parameters can be used to define self. Why is defining the self, important? Many times when we are asked about who we are, the response to this question is never about who we really are but a kind of socially trained response that is driven by acquired perceptions and an imposed set of values that are not formed independently.  While the social definition of the self, although derived from the collective many, is what gives a society and its people some level of a homogenous character, it fails to take responsibility or accountability for the outcomes of choices of the individual self. The two ideas, viz. “who I really am” and “who they think I am” can often merge with one another to form a pretty complex universe that must be navigated.

To be able to navigate successfully through the catacombs of individual and social, it is very often important of defining the self, independent of external influence with a set of meaningful parameters that enable the individual to make choices towards most desirable outcomes. Every outcome and every experience is the complex output of how our individual choices interact with the collective direction and while we make everyday choices almost at a subconscious level, the outcome or experience may not have a noticeable short-term disruption of momentum.

Most often what we do struggle with are the bigger things like the choice of a career path and or deciding on a spouse because these are choices that impact our lives and completely change the direction of its course. And we think we understand these choices when we are hitting the throttle on the decision. However this understanding is often very shallow and as with most choices frivolous, is made through a socially constructed looking glass. The long-term experience and outcome of choices we think we understand will often lead the individual to question the choice. It is at this juncture that we come face to face with trying to understand the drivers of the choice and there we are exposed to understand that we are inherently different from what we are perceived as.

As an example with utmost respect due, most politicians use this to their benefit. In fact most successful politicians seem to have an almost iron clad understanding of their self and use this understanding to drive the external looking glass to driving a desired political, social and economic outcome. Most people I know at my age or over question their choices and decisions and I believe that the symptoms of this can be seen in almost every piece of statistic that has shown rapid change in recent times – crime rates, divorce rates, suicide rates, rebellions, unemployment (I strongly believe that unemployment is an outcome of someone doing what they are not built to do hence not doing it well), per capita income – the list is endless.

At the end of the day, it’s always the individual that defines the character of a stable social entity and this is why defining the self independent of social imposition is crucially important to be able to sustain a stable social fabric. Human nature has evolved over time and faced with a choice that does not align, increasingly we see people jumping ship to alternative avenues in search of satisfaction making for an unstable individual and therefore an unstable society.

Before successfully defining the self, it is important to choose the right parametric pillars to build the definition on. The choice of the wrong pillars will, depending on how they are wrong, will not lead to a meaningful and true reflection of the self. 

Starting with the obvious and most spoken about parameter as we move to a primarily economics driven life – wealth driven affluence. And this is probably the most common parameter used for definition. The road of wealth driven self-definition is one that tends to stretch somewhat beyond the horizon. Call it a cliché but you can buy that 75” LCD and then the 100” plasma and keep going till you have your own movie theatre and the incremental euphoria is really marginal once you reach the 75”.  Beyond the 75” or whatever the equivalent passion is, the acquisition of wealth and hence material wealth as a defining parameter becomes meaningless to some extent.

I consider that the definition of the self is really about the attempt to define a legacy to engrave on your memorial (photo, stone, or whatever your religion asks of you) – the attempt to get to the ‘richest’ in any given cross section will cease to be true with the individual unless you can leave behind machinery that continues to generate wealth.  So, I guess what I am really saying is this, wealth for the sake of being wealthier that some pre-defined parameter or person ends in a somewhat wasted effort since the race feeds on itself like an unbalanced mathematical equation – the higher the attributed values to the variables, the wider the lack of balance.  But then, of late, I have increasingly been meeting a group of people who essentially define and design their lives based on the pursuit of material wealth.

I reiterate (for the fear of being misunderstood) – my contention is not that altruism on a completely selfless basis should replace acquiring wealth. That is not my suggestion at all and frankly I do not believe that true selflessness is achievable – at least in the context of modern life, as it is. If we build a society that is based purely on social welfare the outcome would be unsustainable since this would be discouraging to individual initiative and wealth, or more importantly the opportunity to incremental wealth acquisition, is the most potent motivator towards collective economic progress driven by individual achievement.

But, as we have demonstrated, the incremental value that money or wealth can add to life is somewhat limited and beyond a point the law of diminishing returns results in wealth based self-definitions becoming meaningless statements of accounts. At one time I used to yearn for travelling on a Business Class ticket and, I would not deny it, even today I wish I would be able to get a Business Class ticket. But the actual incremental value (based on experience) is much limited to a perception based value. 

Is then the creation of the capability or the ability to generate wealth a more worthy criteria then to define the self. As wise men have said very often, “you are what you do.” This cannot, in my opinion, be an absolute way of defining someone for two reasons.

First, every individual’s choices and outcomes is as much a determinant of his environment as his own actions. It can be argued that the environment is a direct outcome of a person’s choices and hence outcomes are indirectly influenced by choices. But that would be assuming that choices are always made independent of the environment – this cannot be true since every choice we make is an interaction between the environment and thoughts; and every outcome is an interaction between choices and the environment.

Secondly, by that logic, most individuals would be defined by their profession. Which sometimes this might be true but in very many cases may not be – and this kind of definition of the self in itself is an outcome of acquired perceptions and hence cannot be a very good measure of who you are. A shrewd businessman who is driven solely by a profit motive at work may be a good father and husband – but should he define himself as a shrewd and profit minded person or a loving father and pampering husband?

It is true that what we do and more importantly, how well we do what we do can really be the looking glass for the world to look at someone and hence we often end up convincing ourselves that I must be the person everyone around thinks me up to be. This is the “Ctrl+C – Ctrl+V” version of defining the self. Why bother, right? Well, the problem is that we end up spending most of our lives and very often become the person everyone else wants of us thus draining the individual of his or her full potential to achieve and grow.

I do not say that everyone is born with one unique true purpose in life. If that were the case the concept of a homogenous social existence would crumble under forces of divergent purposes. But I do believe that for a society or economy or existence as such to progress, certain predefined purposes are established forming totems that an individual or groups of individuals gravitate towards. Leading, for example is one of the totems that a few individuals may gravitate towards while a larges number of people will gravitate towards one or more execution related purpose. So, theoretically, while you remain in control of your destiny, in practice you are really subject to choosing from a predetermined set of end games.

Thus using what we do, or end up doing in life, to define one’s self is flawed because this is not an independent expression of our fabric. In fact, it would not be too outrageous either to say that what we end up doing is more a reflection of the society we are born into (the totems we are bound to gravitate to). This makes me become a part of a larger whole instead of having defined the self as the axiom to the environment and social surroundings.

A lot of people have urged me to take the spiritual route to discover the answer to my search for parameters by which to define myself. I started out a few times on conventional and unconventional spiritual paths but stopped very short when I realized that spirituality as it is taught and practiced is more about the preaching and practice than about a journey towards self discovery. My biggest problem with any metaphysical or spiritual attempt at describing oneself is that this starts with the basic assumption of faith in that which is greater than the self and it’s purpose; and a certain acceptance of the magical supernormal as a guiding force. And while the supernatural does not intimidate me (it is a massive universe and there are bound to be things we don’t know, understand or, at the moment, have the ability to comprehend), the variability in the representation of this greater than you and me force and the attribution of prayer as a means to understand it’s power and presence.

I strongly believe that prayer will not help us answer the questions of the existence of a God in whatever form our perceptions shape him to be. The human mind and body have great strength and potential, potential that can be harnessed through meditation and concentration; but attributing such power and capabilities to something beyond ordinary (just because we do not understand it does not mean it is magic or supernatural; I agree it is statistically outside normal) leads to the same problem as with the “you are what you do” approach. As a parameter, spirituality cannot define the self, independent of social and religion driven perceptions – and as we have seen that road generally ends up in a person accepting that, which is socially formulated.

While this essay does not focus on the presence or absence of God as a deterministic force of fate, I would like to believe that fate is not predetermined since such predetermination essentially means that as an individual there is very little control one can exert on his or her life. If my fate and future is predetermined, whatever choices I make will lead to the same outcomes making any effort at self-realization and discovery futile. From what I have seen and heard so far, the argument of God conflicts itself in this one aspect, of many. I would much rather concede to random genetics being the determinants of fate.

Very often decisions and choices are just sum of limitations – you do something because that is the extremity of your capability. For example, I was never good at math; and never for the lack of trying. And this is an independent attribute that random genetics has assigned to me.

At this point it is important to understand or accept that outcomes can never be pin pointed since choices are unique although gravitating towards broad totems. Can I say that a choice I make is going to have an absolute outcome? Outside of numerical mathematics and physics, and sometimes even at that, it is difficult to predict the future. Heisenberg and Schrodinger all have said the future or outcome cannot be predicted beyond potential outcomes. Hence decision-making is generally a factor of deciding on a course that in combination of choosing for the most desirable of potential outcomes and understanding of limitations. So, therefore can we conclusively say the definition of the self is really a sum of a person’s limitations? While this does sound like an immensely pessimistic view of the world much of our conduct and choices are aimed at either concealing and overcoming or working around limitations. Having established that limitations form a large part of how we define ourselves, if is important therefore to also give due merit to strengths.

But, I believe, that a person’s strengths are compensations for his or her limitations. And examples are abundant. Great athletes do not make great scholars, as a rule, and vice versa other than in Robin Cook and John Grisham novels. I would attribute athleticism as an active quality requiring physical strength and scholastic pursuits are generally compensation. There are exceptions but most of those who end up pursuing pure or applied physics will tell you that they were never good at outdoor sports than saying that physics was an inclination from childhood – as if the limitation of outdoor capabilities is largely the defining force. The reverse is true too. Not everyone is geared to applied physics. And if you are not, chances are that you will compensate by inclining to outdoor sports apologizing along the way for not being good with number.

But, thankfully limitations cannot be the only components of defining the self.  A little earlier I mentioned that some significant part of our efforts are directed towards concealing or overcoming our limitations. If our definition of self would be reliant solely on our limitations then the effort to compensate or concealment would be futile. There must therefore be some other parametric element that gives rise to such emotional responses like hope, rationalization and inspiration; key components of being able to work around limitations.

Is it perhaps the much talked about force of will power? Ockham's razor would dictate that that must be it. But I, in spite being an eternal cynic, do believe that will power is something all humans can summon together. It cannot be the missing parameter since it is definitely inherent to human nature and the ability to summon it up is a derivative of situation and consequences. Ordinarily getting up early on a Monday morning can be a pain and yet picture facing a critical examination on a Monday morning, sleep generally ends the night before and there is no shortage of will to wake up.

I believe that, based on recent progresses in understanding the human brain, this factor is the basic human character. It is now proven that strengths and flaws of character, are driven by corners of the human brain and human character is a key determinant in terms of what drives human decision and hence key to self definition. To some extent, human character is shaped by his or her social environment; in the way it impacts the development of neurological reaction centers - to that extent definition of self is not completely isolated from social influence.   A person who is dishonest by character faced with certain limitations will react differently to life as against an honest person faced with the same limitations.

Definitely then, an individuals character is the road that the individual will take to make a choice or behave within the boundaries of his or her limitations – thus concluding to the definition of the self.