In the subject of psychology, it is of no surprise that an area of immense interest is on the subject of identity. Indeed, we seem to be the only organisms (that we are aware of) who possess a rich and ever-present sense of self. Debates still exist as to what the self pertains to, with various definitions and concepts being suggested since the days of philosophical antiquity. While this topic will be explored further in a future post, one thing worth mentioning is that virtually all definitions possess the ubiquitous characteristic of relating to the self-told story of one's memories and prior experiences. It seems that identity is the thread which connects all previous experiences and from which the narrative of self forms.
One thing peculiar, albeit paradoxical about the self is it's transfixed, ever present; and yet, fluid nature. The self is a concept by which the narrative that composes it is ever changing in flux with our experiences. More importantly, the self is not a unidimensional psychic structure. It is a structure that possesses various self-states and alternate points of identification. These are what are known as "self-schemas" various narratives that are attributed with the self concept.
To understand this better, think of yourself in various situations. While you may identify with various self-descriptions (e.g, I am extroverted; I am intellectual) these self-identifications and self-expressions may change depending on the circumstance. You may also be a wife, mother, daughter and friend simultaneously. Though these are all parts of the self-concept, the self-expression that leads from them will differ in various circumstances. For example, you will behave differently when entering the "wife" state than you will when taking the role of "daughter." This is not inauthenticity, but rather the fluidity of being a social animal. Indeed, failure to integrate these various self-states can lead to identity crises, rigidity of personality, overidentification with the persona, and even pathological states, such as dissociative identity disorder, where the various self-states are not integrated.
Neurologically, we see this state as well. The brain, though a uniformed organ, possesses various different systems responsible for different functions and communicating interdependently to produce the totality of the central nervous system. Neuroscientist David Eaglemen refers to these as "automated zombie systems." Indeed, he states in his book "Incognito" "The more automated subsystems within a central nervous system, the more consciousness an organism is likely to possess." These automated systems are responsible for the vast majority of our behavior, why we are unaware of the majority of our actions and why we experience self-contrary states. For example, one may struggle with the temptation of eating a cookie in the present, or continue with the long-term goal of a healthy diet for the purpose of increased longevity. What decision will prevail depends on the intensity and level of connections of the various zombie systems present within the brain.
While this will be explored further in a future post, let us look at various pop-culture and religious example which represent this paradigm.
Virtue and Temptation
A trope common in fiction is that of the shoulder angel and devil, who represent a characters struggle between doing good and doing evil. A classic (albeit comedic) example is The Emperor's New Groove's "Kronk" who struggles with whether he will leave Cusko to die or whether he will save his life. The angel and devil represent various subsystems within Kronk's brain, while he, the conscious aspect of the nervous system, decides to listen to the subsystem that chose to do good. This scene comedically, albeit beautifully showcases the inner struggle between the different, intercommunicating "subpersonalities" of our minds. The brain interprets stimuli, the zombie subsystems "speak" to us, and we "decide" our continued course of action.
Multi-One
Several pop-culture references demonstrate the trope of various souls inside of one body. Mark 5:9 within the bible contains a passage of a demonically possessed man identifying himself as "legion, for we are many." Indeed, the concept of a soul, while usually seen as an abstract, incorporeal entity, is typically thought of as the fundamental essence of a person. Though modern science does not embrace the idea of a soul (as it is an untestable, albeit unfalsifiable hypothesis) several philosophers define the soul in a less dualistic and more psychologically consistent conception. For example, Soren Kierkegaard saw the soul and the self as virtually interchangable, seeing the psyche as a series of opposing relationships, and defining the self as "the relationship that relates itself to itself in relation to the relating."
While I will cover the logic and philosophy of the self in a future post, for now let us examine fictional representations. A series much loved by the public (and of which I have skimmed recently) is that of Mortal Kombat. A king of the fighting genre of video games, Mortal Kombat possesses various references to souls, utilizing characters who possess powers of soul-theft, or of otherwise having their soul affected in some way.
Whilst various examples may be given, an interesting example is in the character of Shang Tsung. A dark sorcerer with a mastery of the black arts, Shang Tsung has gained the ability to claim the souls of fallen heroes who fail in Mortal Kombat. Though not attributed to his own "soul", the other souls are now at his mercy, forced to fight alongside him at his discretion, or for the sorcerer to access the form, personality and abilities of whichever soul of his choosing. As Raiden states within the 1995 film: "to face Shang Tsung is not to face one, but a legion of adversaries."
But of more relevance on our topic, another Mortal Kombat character who better reflects this concept is that of Ermac. To call Ermac a character is actually somewhat of a misnomer, as Ermac is not one person. Rather, "he" is thousands of souls all functioning in harmony inside of one ninja. His perceived powers are not mere sorcery, but the harmony of souls which function in unison, all contributing to the one identifying nomenclature that is Ermac. In fact, as "they" state in their self-introduction to Liu Kang within Mortal Kombat 9, "We are many. You are but one. We will destroy you."
In this example, the self-reference of "we" can logically be deduced to be more accurate than a simple "I." However, there are examples where the differentiation between "I" and "we" lies is not so clear cut. Indeed, Psychiatrist Carl Jung did not distinguish between the fundamental nature of the individual and the collective, seeing a difference only via perspective and categorical identification. Though many symbols may be used to explore this concept, let us examine a famous example that is upheld and believed by almost 2.3 billion people worldwide.
The Christian Trinity: How Three Can Be One
If one examines the religious principles of Christianity, it's no mystery that a central doctrine is that of the trinity; the notion that God is in fact, three persons (The Father; The Son and The Holy Spirit) all of whom are united to compose one God, but who themselves are also each equally and one-hundred percent God. This is a central doctrine to Christianity to the point that non-trinitarian groups (such as Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses) are considered heretical. Various heresies, furthermore, about the trinity exist, such as partialism (the notion that the three persons are aspects, or "parts" of one God), modalism (the persons are three different aspects of God) or tritheism (the three persons are three Gods rather than one encompassing God). In fact, Christian canon is clear that the one God is equally God within the three persons, and that each of the three persons are equally one-hundred percent God, but that the three persons are separate from one another and interact.
But how can this be? How is it possible for an entity to be one and three simultaneously? A Christian often will argue that earthly attributes cannot be assigned to an eternal, infinitely complex entity such as God. While this is an understandable and sympathetic position, it may also be understood from a more naturalistic and archetypal perspective.
To begin with a brief archetypal perspective, a character of any story may exist within the attributes that are assigned to them via the story itself. Though magic is not scientifically thought to exist, it is capable of being utilized by Harry Potter, as he, within the confines of the laws of his world-narrative, is capable of utilizing magic. So how is it that God can manifest within three persons? Because that was the nature defined for him.
But to provide a perspective that may be more appealing to the believer, a remarkable essay written by Carl Jung outlines the archetype of the trinity, showing how three can be united into one. Note, this is different to the notion of a triad, in that three exist independently and individually. In a trinity, three distinct persons are united to form a wholistic unity in one. A One composed of Threeness, if you will.
The formation of a trinity begins with one. In one, there is nothing outside of the grand whole. The one is the grand unity with nothing being found separate from it. It is the "mono" in the titular "monism". However, within the one, there is no reference point. As the one is the totality of all things, nothing is distinct from it or found outside of itself. As such, the one lacks a point of reference used for self-comparison. The only possibility for this is for there to be two, as with two, possibility begins to form and a point-of-reference becomes feasible. The problem with two lies precisely in this divisibility, as though possibility inquires itself through two, the resulting duality creates a separation within the one. The one desires to be a monistic unit again, as the existence of the two threatens the monism of the one. However, the desire to be one threatens the individuality of the two, who desires to remain separate from the one to retain its proper nature. So how does the one return to former holism while retaining the existence of the two? Via three. The third serves as a mediator linking the individual one and two, and in so doing forms a totality via which the three individuals serve united in the grand unification of the one. In so doing, the three serve as their own person, presenting with a unique individuality, identity and personhood, but in being defined by their relationship with the one, as these three distinctions serve as aspects of the one via there relationships and definition.
We see this dynamic play out in the trinity. God The Father is traditionally identified as the creator of the universe; the monistic reality that is looked to as the uncaused-cause, guide for mankind, and lover of all creation. However, father is a designation assigned via relationship. A father is only a father in that a child has been begotten of said father, as a father with no children (living or dead) is contrary to the definition. Thus, God the Father must be the father of something, who is identified as the second person of the trinity, God, The Son (Christ). The definition of these two persons is interdependent upon the relationship with the other. The Bible clarifies that though Jesus is the son of the Father, he equally is God in his divine nature, that is, he is equally eternal and infinite (while distinctly also being human) as is the father. Finally, God the Son is also eternally begotten of the Father, eternally emerging from the Father, thus being eternal himself and having no/infinite origin.
God the Son is the emerging duality that results from God the Father. He is God given human form and human nature, so that God may manifest an existence that is both divine and human. In so doing, the sacrifice of God the Son allows humans to bridge the gap between sin and salvation, and permits conquest of death via the grace of God. But the acquisition of human nature by God creates a fundamental distinction in God's totality; for humans are God's creation and not God himself. Thus, the emergence of God the Son as distinct from God the Father bridges this gap, and allows humanity to be rejoined with God through his grace.
While Father and Son are defined by their relationship to each other and united by their love for each other, a third person is involved in the unifying relationship of the two persons: God the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit functions as the intermediary between the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. He is the bridge by which the Father and Son, two distinct persons, are united within the totality of the Godhead, bringing unity to the trifecta relationship of the three persons that constitute the one transcendent God. Much as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (in Catholic and Protestant denominations) or the Father alone (in Orthodox tradition).
While the relationship of Son is a logical extension from Father, with Father also being defined via the begotten Son, it does not seem logical that "Holy Spirit" would be the proceeding third relationship from the first two. So what is the Holy Spirit? Well, Jung demonstrates that Holy Spirit, true to its ancient teachings, was seen as "breath" in it's nature, consistent with the representation of it (such as doves, smoke or fire). It's abstract nature is the result of it eternally being "breathed" by the Father (and perhaps the Son) who represents in said breath, the life of the first two persons of the trinity. In ancient times, life was seen as an independent, autonomous quality, existing within but separate from body or "corpus." It existed as its own agency and energy, entering a body at birth and leaving upon death. The Holy Spirit is precisely this life of God, being breathed eternally (and thus, not a procreation, as is the son) from the Father (and usually Son) unifying them in their relationship and shared life.
Next, it is worth noting the Jesus expressed his leaving of the Holy Spirit on earth precisely for the guidance and consolidation of humanity to God. While the Holy Spirit may be the eternally breathed life and intermediary between the Father and Son, It also functions as the intermediary between God and humanity through the sacrifice of Christ. While the Son was the source of unification of humans with God, the Holy Spirit functions as the guiding force for humans back to God (which Methodist Christians refer to as "the path.") and imbuing them with the sacrifice of the Son to be unified in heaven with the Oneness of the Father.
Thus, the three persons are defined as separate via the nature of their interdependent relationship to each other. God the Father (the one) in his love for, and desire to unite with his creations, separates his oneness through the distinct person, God the Son (the two), who is eternally begotten of the Father, to take on human form and die for the sins of humanity. Proceeding from this ever-present relationship is the third distinct person, God the Holy Spirit (the three), who eternally is "breathed" by (and thus proceeds from) the Father (/Son) and is the intermediary between the two, and the unification of the individualized separation of the Son from the Father.
A concrete analogy that may be useful is the concept of a relationship. A partner (boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse) by definition, is only a partner in-so-far as they are relating to someone else. Together, the two partners form the definition of a relationship, which constitutes the third, intermediate yet unifying force between the two partners. Though all three are their own independent construct, they are defined in-so-far as they relate to the other partner and relationship, and thus form the totality of the one relationship through their distinctness. For a relationship to be precisely that, it requires two partners and a unifying agreement between the two, forming one thing defined within the context of its threefold nature.
While defining the three persons as aspects of God falls into the heresy of modalism, I see no reason why the additional description of "aspect" within the trinity is of contradiction to its defined modality. While it is clear the three persons are distinct and independent, each with a separate identity, they are each God, contributing to and creating his all-encompassing nature. Thus, while each person is a different self, they each compose a different "state-of-being" to God and thus unite the one God via these three identities. As one identity is unconsciously constituted by an innumerable quantity of self-states, God is defined by three persons, constituting a personality proper, who each exhibit and independent existence yet are unified via essence and definition into the all-encompassing God. The result is three independent persons constituting a totality of one.
Inscryption and Self-Schemas
I would be remiss if I did not include Inscryption, as one of the central characters, Leshy, is extremely relevant to this paradigm. In the interest of keeping the story as spoiler free as possible, Leshy is the central antagonist when entering the games story; an entity always confining himself to the darkest corner of his cabin, almost never showing his face albeit via two staring eyes, and leaving the protagonist trapped in an endless cycle of playing Leshy's card game. Having a fondness for narrative, Leshy actively introjects storytelling within the context of the card game, absorbing the captive in a seemingly contradictory engaging lore to contrast with the seemingly dire situation. In summary, he functions as a dungeon master while the captive participates in Leshy's game.
Of particular interest to our topic are Leshy's masks. When participating in the game, Leshy dawns a variety of masks to represent different characters in the context of the story; the most notable of which are the three bosses: the prospector, the angler and the trapper/trader. Initially, these characters seem to be mere persona's; fictionalized antagonists used to tell a story. However, later in the story, we see that these characters actually exist. They are subservient to Leshy and assist in obtaining his ultimate goal (which for irrelevancy and spoilers, shall not be listed here). Though these characters exist independently of Leshy, we see that Leshy is not only their master, but that Leshy imitates the mannerisms and personality of these characters perfectly. While some may attune this to Leshy's skills as a game master, Inscryption fandom references that this is in fact Leshy becoming those characters.
Much like the characters we have discussed, the masked characters of Leshy are in fact aspects of the game master while simultaneously being independent from him. In dawning the mask, Leshy assumes the identity of the character and is capable of permitting the character to speak via the attributed mask. While always Leshy, his self-state changing to permit the schema of his alter-ego's to come to the forefront, increasing the means by which the game is added to in it's overall atmosphere.
Symbolically, this is no different from our psychology in entering a self-state. Various subsystems of the central nervous system may come online, causing us to enter the state of "angry me", "happy me" or "aroused me" for example. We also dawn the mannerisms of the characters that we create. Anyone who has ever played an RPG has invested emotionally in the character they create. The character functions as an avatar, with which we imbue with self-schemas that we attribute to the character. In so doing, we mentally become the character for the duration of the game, much as our brain allows us to be "us" for the duration of our lives, such states allow us do dawn another persona, or "self" through the use of our self-schemas, for these schemas form the overall narrative by which the self is identified.
Conclusion
Though automated subsystems and self-schema's are not synonymous, self-schemas may be seen via psychology as an abstract parallel to the multifaceted nature of our central nervous system. In attributing this to a Jungian theme, all listed examples may be seen as an archetype for this dynamic, which functions as an imperfect symbol for the purpose of understanding psychic realities. These subsystems function to assist us in our individuation and self-realization in everyday life. Be careful of the schemas by which you will identify yourself, for they could mean the different between self-mastery and self-destruction. Furthermore, these internal spirits are there for your benefit. Let them be your guide in your quest for self-authenticity.