Who Am I?

The Mysterious Human Self

Michael D. Moga, SJ (1989)

From Invitation to Wonder: An Introduction to Philosophical Thought (Mandaluyong, Phils.:

Solar Publishing Corp., 1989), pp. 117-126.

One of man’s basic experience is his experience of his self. Man knows who he is. In all
of his activities and involvements there is a certain amount of self-awareness. I live and
I think and I act and as I do so I am aware of myself.

[2] Usually this self-awareness is not explicit. I do not generally focus my attention
on myself as I go about my life. I am absorbed with some activity, person or thing in my
world and there is only an implicit sense of myself. I concentrate, for example, on
reading this page and I am vaguely aware of the “I” who is doing the reading.

[3] Who am I? What makes me the person that I am? What is behind my name?
Such questions are very difficult to answer. I can say that I am precious and different
from everyone else but this leaves the crucial question unanswered. What in me or in
my experience is this precious, unique reality that I call my self?

[4] It is clear that the self is not an object that can be examined by one of our
physical sciences. I cannot see or touch your self. Further, the self is something that we
are aware of but it is not an idea like justice or atom. For the true self is not an object of
thought but the very subject who knows those objects. The self is thus unlike anything
else that we think about or study.

[5] We know that we are aware of our selves. That awareness is where our search
must begin. We must take experiences of self-awareness and analyze them for the
nature of the self that is found in such experiences. There is need here for a sensitivity
for what is happening in our inner lives. We will attempt to describe the forms and
structures that this inner life takes.

[6] One problem that faces us is the variety of this inner life. The way I live my
selfhood seems to be different in different situations. The self is not found in one set
form. Let us examine some of these forms.

The “Pole” Self

Moga, page 1
[7] The most obvious sense of the self or “I” is that of a subject of activity. I see
myself as a separate someone who thinks and acts. Who am I? I am the one who lives
my life and who is responsible for my activity. I call this self the “pole” self because in
living this way I set myself up as a pole, a point from which the world is viewed and
dealt with. Just as the north pole is the point from which all other points can be
measured on the globe so my self is a center point for understanding and action.

[8] Living as this “pole” self I find myself opposite to other people and other objects
in the world. I am here and I observe them out there and I deal with them out there. In
this type of experience there is a clear division between the self and the other. Precisely
as this “pole” self I am isolated and alone. No one else is in this place. No one else is
with me.

[9] There is a clear sense of self-awareness connected with the “pole” self. My
thoughts, feelings and plans are evident to me. All that is inside my consciousness is
clear and certain. Outside this inner world there is opaqueness and darkness. The
nature of the world and the thoughts of other people are hidden to me. I know myself
but other people are mysterious for me.

[10] Connected with this self is a heightened sense of distinct individuality. I am

separate and different from others since I alone am here at this time. No one else can be
localized in precisely the same way. The thoughts and experiences that occupy my mind
flow from me and none other. Thus I am different from others not because I have
different feelings or thoughts but because I am separate from them. I am outside them
and I always will be outside them.

[11] It is this self that has the experience of embarrassed self-consciousness. In my

distinctiveness I feel myself to be the object of critical analysis on the part of others. It
is an unpleasant feeling: the pole that I am is being examined by other poles around me.
I am dominated and held by their scrutiny.

Self as Identification

[12] The nature of the “pole” self is very clear. We experience this way of being a self
frequently in our lives. However this is not the only way we are selves. We find
ourselves being selves in other forms. There is, for instance, the experience of
identification. I identify myself with some object or way of thinking or group and that
object of identification becomes my self.

Moga, page 2
[13] I identify myself, for instance, with my body and I feel personally praised when
someone says something nice about my body. I am likewise hurt when someone speaks
critically of my body. Bodily feelings and sicknesses are my feelings and sicknesses. I
am bealthy when my body is healthy.

[14] I identify myself with my accomplishments. I take pride in my successes because

they are somehow me. On the other hand a failure is felt as a loss, a lessening of me.
These instances reveal how I see myself in terms of what I have done. If asked to
identify myself I may reply that I am the one who did a certain thing. I built that
building or fathered that child.

[15] I identify myself with my opinions and judgments. I am a liberal, a Christian.

These ways of thinking are distinctive and set me apart from others. I identify with
these attitudes, I feel hurt when others reject them and I have a sense of being
personally affirmed when others agree with them.

[16] I identify myself with my possessions. I have a sense of personal growth and
development when my money and possessions grow. I take pride in what I own. I have
a sense of personal loss when my possessions decrease.

[17] All these examples show us various experiences of the self. It is a self that is
achieved by an identification. I become one with my body, my accomplishments, my
opinions or my possessions. I live as if they are me. This “identification” self gives me
a distinct sense of who I am. I am separated from all other selves. My body and my
accomplishments are not their bodies and accomplishments.

[18] At times this “identification” self can have a wider scope. I identify myself with a
reality that extends beyond me. I can identify myself, for instance, with my family.
They are who I am. This is shown in the situation where I give my family name to
identify myself. This name signifies me better at times than my personal name. This is
shown also in the way that a success or failure in family affairs is felt as my own success
or failure. My family is me.

[19] In a similar way I identify myself with my friends, my nation or my team. In

response to the question “Who are you?” I may name my friends or say that I am a
Filipino or I am a Tanduay fan. These groups identify me. So it is that my team’s
victory is my victory or a problem of my country is my problem. I have made myself one
with these groups. I am concerned about my group and defend it as if it were myself.

Moga, page 3
[20] Notice that in these cases there is a true identification. There is no separation or
intermediary here. When my family is insulted I immediately feel anger as if I were
insulted. When my team wins a game I immediately feel elated as if I had won the
game. I do not reason to these feelings. The fact that I feel them directly shows that
these groups are me. The truth of this is shown in an opposite situation. If I have lost
my group or family I have less of a sense of identity. Who I am is not so clear.

[21] But it should be noted that while the identification experience gives me a sense
of distinct identity it does not give me a sense of strict uniqueness. There are others
who belong in these same groups. There are other members of my family, other
Filipinos, other Tanduay fans. They share in the same self that I experience. The
“identification” self does not make me a “one and only.”

[22] In these cases of a broad “identification” self we have further examples of the
“pole” self. By identifying myself with a group I have a point from which I view other
groups. These other groups are different and opposed to me. There is an inner and
outer world here, the inner being all the groups that I identify with while the outer
consists of all other groups.

The Involved Self

[23] The experience of the self that we have been describing has been that of a
distinct individual who acts from a separate position. But there are other experiences of
the self where I do not find myself at a distance from others and the world. There is an
experience of vital involvement with a reality beyond me. In this experience I forget
myself as a distinct individual. I lose the sense of separateness. I transcend myself and
experience a type of union. It may seem paradoxical but what is found here is a selfless
self. It is a self where the sense of “me” or “mine” is absent. Let us examine a few
examples of this involved self.

[24] Sometimes I may be engaged in a very absorbing activity. I am watching a movie

or reading a book. While doing so I am so caught up in the story that I forget myself. I
am not sensitive to my hunger or to any bodily discomfort. This may be a very vital
experience which enriches me as a person and yet there is no awareness here of a
distinct personhood. A similar experience would be that of work or play that absorbs
my attention. I forget myself in planting a crop or catching fish or in playing basketball.
The activity is the focus of awareness, there is little or no reflection upon myself.

Moga, page 4
[25] Creative involvements are selfless. I am composing some music or writing a
poem or story. After settling myself and getting in the mood I let the creative impulse
take over. In a true sense the song composes itself and the story writes itself. It flows
through me and I would inhibit the creative flow if I acted in a self-conscious way and
tried to plan each word or each note. The activity here does not originate from a
distinct and separate “pole” self. I live in the world of inspiration and music and words
and there in that world there is life and activity.

[26] Sometimes I experience a sensitive oneness with nature. I listen to the rain
splashing on the roof or to waves pounding on the seashore. I feel the wind blowing
past my skin or gaze up into the greatness of the sky. These experiences of nature
enrich me and yet I tend to forget myself in them. I live the magnificence and
gentleness and power and beauty of nature. As an individual self I am not planning or
organizing or doing anything here. It is nature that lives.

[27] There can be an experience of prayer where the presence of God floods my
awareness. I live in a sense of divine peace and joy and love. I do not cause this
experience. If I try to cause it or hold on to it I find that it disappears. There is no
active self here. In fact, there is no self-conscious self at all. I have to forget myself in
order that the presence of God might show itself.

[28] There is a type of self-forgetfulness in compassionate oneness with other people.

I am one with the pain of my friend whose mother has died. I am one with the joy of a
child who splashes in the water. It is their feelings which live in my experience. I have
to let go of myself and my own feelings in order to live compassionately.

[29] Similarly, there is an experience of this involved self in certain shared social
activities. I take part in a parade; I worship with others in a ceremony; I have a
conversation with a friend. There is a common activity in each of these cases together
with a common mood or spirit. We are all immersed in that activity and mood. No one
distinct individual guides and determines the spirit of a group. To engage in a
conversation in a full sense is to let go of one’s self. Frequently in a conversation I will
say something that I did not intend to say. I will express anger and reveal feelings that I
would have preferred to keep hidden. What is said in a true conversation and the ideas
that are expressed are not clearly assignable to just one of the participants. Frequently
in a conversation one person will finish the sentence begun by the other. There is a
unity here in which both of us are immersed.

Moga, page 5
[30] The “involved” self is also experienced in the area of human commitment. I am
caught up, for example, in a concern for the welfare of my family; I dedicate myself as a
doctor to eliminate disease and suffering; I work as a lawyer for greater justice in my
country. In these areas of commitment I experience being carried along by something
greater than myself. I rely on an inspiration from beyond to guide me and sustain me. I
care for something beyond the satisfaction of my own needs. The cause that I give
myself to is more important than myself.

[31] In all of these examples of the “involved” self we can see certain characteristics of
this way of living the self. (1) These forms of living are not controlled by a central “ego.”
They are part of my life not because I have chosen them by a determined and planned
act of my will. (2) There is a spontaneity and openness to all these ways of living. They
are not in any way forced. They come into my life each time as something new and
fresh, a surprising gift of life. (3) They are creative moments. In each of these
experiences I become something more than what I was before. I live in a new way or in
a deeper way. I do not just follow a plan that I decided upon beforehand nor do I merely
perform the set actions expected of a particular role. Each moment of an “involved” self
is a surprise. (4) In these moments there is no sense of distinctiveness. I do not
experience myself as separated and different from other people and the world. Rather
there is an experience of oneness. I am caught up and united in something beyond
myself. Throughout all these experiences there is a freedom from self-consciousness.
The self is not the center of awareness. (5) These moments are rich and real. They are
full of meaning for my existence. In moving from the “pole” self into these moments of
the “involved” self I feel that I have gained a rich treasure.

The Role Self

[32] One other way of being the self is that of playing a role. If you asked me “Who
are you?” I could possibly answer that I am a policeman or the son of certain parents. In
answering in this way I see myself in terms of certain roles that I have to play in life; I
am a self in terms of those roles. I think of myself as a policeman. This role is the
meaning of my life. Similarly I think of myself as son. Possibly in introducing myself I
would present this basic relationship as expressing who I am.

[33] There are various characteristics of this “role” self. First of all, in this “role” self
there are prescribed ways of acting. As an older brother, for instance, there are certain

Moga, page 6
responsibilities that I have. There are certain ways that I act toward my younger
brothers and sisters. I live as a particular self in performing these actions.

[34] Frequently in a role there is particular attitude of mind that I identify with. As a
teacher, for instance, I am a person of dignity and intelligence. As a mother I am a
person of love and fidelity. I assume these attitudes when I live as a particular “role”
self.

[35] This “role” self is distinctive. In terms of my role I see myself as different from
other people. I expect them to have different ways of acting and different attitudes.
However the distinctness that I find in this role is not an absolutely unique distinctness.
Other people can have the same role as I do.

[36] This “role” self is a social or cultural self. The roles that make up my self are
determined by a particular cultural tradition. It is within that tradition that I find
myself. I am not myself because I make my own decisions about my life, because I
decide to act like an elder brother or to feel dignified as a teacher. Rather I am a
particular “role” self insofar as I fit in with a pattern determined by society. The focus
is not on my decision but on a type of action, a pattern within the cultural context. The
“role” self does not stand apart from society as an isolated individual. As a “role” self I
exist precisely as part of society.

The Image Self

[37] The “image” self seems to be different from all other ways of being the self. Here
I am what others think of me or what I think of myself. This is not a matter of a social
role that is determined by a culture. Rather this is a very particular image which
clarifies who I am and which guides my life. For instance, I see myself as a good person
or a lazy person. Others may see me as a difficult person or a hardworking person.
These are images which describe who I am. Such images are very important in the life
of a person. They give the meaning of my life. Such meaning influences the attitudes I
have toward myself and the life I lead. Depending on my self-image I can accept or
reject myself. I can reject myself because I see myself as lazy or I can like myself
because I see myself as a hero.

[38] This is the type of self that is dealt with in a “self-discovery” seminar. At such a
seminar the participants express their frank reactions to one another. By so doing they
reveal to me my self. The concept is that my self is what others think of me. When

Moga, page 7
people like me, for example, it is a certain image that they like. They like the good-
natured me, the considerate me, the smiling me.

[39] The image self seems to be quite different from my other experiences of self. In
the course of my life I have formed certain images of myself and I react to them and am
guided by them. These images may be quite different from the roles that I play in
society; it can be unconnected with the activities of my “involved” self; it need not see
me as a “pole” self, a source of action. I may not be explicitly aware of this “image” self
in my life but from its place in the background it influences my life very greatly.

Conclusion

[40] Who am I? What is the nature of this self that I am? In the course of this article
we have tried to look into ourselves and our inner experience and to discover the
characteristics of the self that is found there. We have discovered that the human self is
found in a variety of structures, a variety which is found in a everyone’s experience. We
found that each of the five forms of the self was somehow truly present in each of our
lives. The human self is clearly not one simple reality but it appears in many different
forms. There is even the possibility of further forms of the self. The five structures that
are presented in this article do not exhaust the ways that we experience human
selfhood.

[41] But our minds cannot accept this diversity of forms of the self as a final
conclusion. Should not there be one basic form of the self which underlies all the other
forms? Do I not have the experience that one particular way of living my selfhood is
more truly me. When we affirm that it is important to find ourselves, which self are we
talking about? What is true self-discovery? Don’t psychologists speak of a growth in
one’s selfhood as man matures? What is the form of this full mature selfhood? Our
minds push us to try to find some unity within this diversity of experience.

[42] But a problem arises here. Any attempt to define the true or basic self is
necessarily based on some presupposition. For instance, if we want to give a
“scientific” answer to this question we would necessarily affirm the pole self to be the
most basic self. For when we attempt to think seriously, to be scientific, we assume the
pose of an isolated observer who calmly looks for objective facts. Such an isolated
observer is living as a pole self. The presuppositions of modern science have influenced
our judgment here.

Moga, page 8
[43] It seems that any attempt to answer these questions necessarily involves
presuppositions. We all begin our reflecting with a certain view of what human
personhood truly is and there will be a diversity of such views. We are aware, for
instance, of the great difference between Sartre and Marcel and Kierkegaard in their
description of man’s full selfhood. We can investigate the presupposition of each and
find the deep reasons behind this diversity of viewpoint.

[44] We are left then with an invitation to enter ourselves into this dialogue by
clarifying our own personal sense of the structure of human selfhood. What position we
take on this question will be supported by the truth of our own experience of human
selfhood. As we clarify this experience more and more we will penetrate more deeply
into what continues to be the mysterious human self. [END]

Moga, page 9