The Divided Self

Introduction: Contradictory Selves
 Last week I brought up the idea that to be human is to contain multitudes, and I suggested that the concept of “contradiction” is an intrinsic part of experiencing life.  In the Blob Theory framework, I operate under the assumption that each of us has a divided self, and that these divisions are clusters of opposing forces that exist at odds with each other. This might go contrary to your intuition that life or consciousness works as a unified whole, but let me explain my reasoning about making the distinction between the unified self and the divided self. 

Aliveness itself feels a lot like one consistent experience.  In addition to feeling alive right now, I also feel like I existed yesterday, last month, and last year.  I feel like I am fundamentally the same “me” as I was when I was born, and that this same “me” will die at the end of my life.  There is one consistent thread of life that I am experiencing, and I only get to directly experience my own life.  I can’t see inside the heads of anyone else but myself: other people are other people, and there is a clear boundary on the edge of my consciousness where my experience ends. These are all facts that work seamlessly with the normal western default intuitive model of reality.  It resonates with Aristotle’s Laws of Thought and it comes with associations of permanence and identity.  In the default intuitive model, reality exists by virtue of its consistency, and contradictions are signs of falsehood or lack of reason. 

That being said, it takes only a few moments of self-inspection to see how there are conflicting motivations or desires that exist within you.  These conflicts can be described as internal divisions, where some sections oppose their counterparts.   There might be a part within you that desires to go to sleep at a certain hour, and another part that actually executes the sleeping process, independent of any conscious decision.   Which part represents the “true you”?  Are you the planner of things or are you the doer of things?  

You might identify more strongly with the planner, the visualizer, the one responsible for your future self.  This would mean you spend your time and your effort primarily on tomorrow’s happiness.  Or perhaps you identify more closely with the doer, the “you” who lives in the moment and who executes all your actions.  Maybe you see yourself as some complex blend of the two, something simply inarticulable, an entity without categories.  Regardless of the style of division, you exist as a being with contradiction in your motives or desires.


Historical Example - Freud
There are many popular models of dividing the self. One historically influential system is Freud’s proposition of using the Id, the Ego, and the Superego as a categorization system to describe three different patterns of thought and behavior.  Ego is the only of those words still commonly used today, meaning something like the “selfish self”, but the original model described a system with three competing actors.  The three components work together in a framework that sees the self as a mixture of conscious and unconscious thought, and that conscious thought and willpower is just a small portion of the overall mind.  Therefore, in the model, unconscious motives exist within us, often contrary to our deliberate intentions, and often exist as invisible to our internal conscious observer.  

In this strategy of dividing the self, the model gives identities to the three entities that fight in the battlefield of conscious and unconscious thought.  The Id is the instinctual, automatic, animal drive that fights for survival and longs for pleasure.  The Ego is the rational, conscious mediator that feels like it’s in the driver’s seat.  It functions differently than the popular understanding of the word, but both versions of the word are closely associated with personal identity.  Finally, the Superego is the value system and moral instinct that guides you.  Each of these three divisions has its own motives and goals, and the efforts of each one often conflict with each other.  Without all the lingo, it can be described as the animal within you being in conflict with the divine within you, and it’s up to the rational mediator to navigate this balance.  The themes of these ideas can be traced back to Plato, but I’d like to highlight Freud’s model as the prime example of a formal, rigorous division of the self. 


Modern Example - Brain Structure
The divided self can also be described in material terms, by correlating patterns of behavior with different sections of the brain.  Our contradictions can be traced back in our evolutionary lineage, as evidenced by the degree of shared brain structure with other kinds of life.  The evolutionary starting point of our brain is the part we share with all other vertebrates, formed hundreds of millions of years ago.  These early structures are the so-called “lizard brain” that was good enough to keep our ancestors alive and reproducing for so many generations.  This part of the brain is associated with things that are extremely automatic, things that require no conscious control.  Your heart will keep beating even if you try using all your willpower to stop it.  Breathing is generally done automatically, but you can temporarily breathe consciously if you focus hard enough.  

As we evolved, layers expanded outwards and our shapes grew distinct from our cold blooded brethren.  The newer brain bits, the parts that we share with mammals, are more closely connected to emotional processing, social bonding, and predicting rewards.  This so-called “limbic system” is still hundreds of millions of years old, and it's mostly coded as unconscious thought, and seemingly akin to the animal instinct we share with similar life forms. If you compared the brain structures to Freud’s model, you could say that these ancient brains are more closely related to the “id”.   

Only the newest bits are unique to primates, and the newest newest bits specific to humans.  The prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is the outermost surface that developed a quarter-million years ago, is the part responsible for thinking, planning, and personality.  If I were forced to describe the part of the brain that I most closely identify with, it would have to be with the PFC.  It’s closely correlated with all of the qualities that I (and most other people) associate with selfhood and identity.  I don’t identify very much with the way I breathe, or the way my body automatically moves, but instead I identify with my thoughts, my plans, my intentions, my feelings.  These ego-related qualities can be consistently correlated with the role of the PFC.

The PFC, the freshly-grown outermost layer of the brain, has its neurons so closely coiled and folded that they process incredible amounts of information, with the PFC representing an intensely interconnected network of pathways and channels that can relay electric current throughout the brain.  Still, the PFC does not exactly have control over the brain.  It’s not the body’s sole authority.  Each of the brain’s divisions plays its role, and the motives of logic and reason are ineffectual to the raw truths of hunger and pain.  The behaviorally divided self can be delineated according to these physical brain structures, with behavioral issues labeled according to their appropriate brain structure.  Conflict and contradiction can be described by terms such as “impulse control” (PFC) or “emotional urges” (the limbic system) and can be explained and justified by the role that the brain structures evolutionarily took. 


The divided self within Blob Theory
Blob theory challenges the notion of fixed categories and boundaries, so I use the divided self as an accessible way to observe contradictions first-hand.  Despite the default assumption that you are a consistent, coherent individual, life is filled with constant tiny conflicts of interest.  The conflict is clear when you turn down a tasty treat in the name of health, or when you can’t help but find a married friend attractive. We all have inner voices that advocate for the present moment as well as for future consequences, and the two voices are constantly at odds.  The modern western worldview has “right and wrong” or “true and false” baked into its conceptual DNA. Attempts to justify or explain the apparent contradiction within us results in rules and divisions, organized laws that describe the nature of the conflict.  Western models and standards invariably favor clear, absolute units of measurement.  Next week I will introduce their counterpart, a Blob unit of measurement  that describes contradictory information more accurately than the default model. 
​
Next week I’ll also be switching to Substack!  Hopefully you’ve been enjoying and understanding this series of writing.  I will start the Substack emails with a recap of these first five writings, and a summary of the key terms I expect to use to describe the workings of Blob Theory.  With the introduction of Blob units, the theory will become more concrete and hopefully my arguments will become clear. 

What other arguments have you heard for a divided self? Have you noticed your own internal divisions?   Please let me know in the comments or by direct message!