When a person utilizes the word self, I hallucinate that they are referring to the sum total of thoughts that they believe create the whole of who they are. We are what we believe, whether this belief is an illusion or not, we make it up by the way of our thoughts. The self is only as real as we think it to be. I believe that we are thoughts.

When utilizing the word improvement, we are evaluating the beliefs of what we think we need to improve to create a state of mind that we desire in that moment.

To get to the point, since we are thoughts, then what we really should be calling the subject is “thought improvement.” However, we as humans need to put a face on “it.” We need something tangible to visualize. So we call “it” self. Self is me. I need improvement. I need to change what I am doing to feel the way I think I want to feel. But, we cannot escape the essence of self, which I believe is thought.

So to answer the initial question, yes! Since we are thoughts, and the law of cause and effect does exist, thoughts are causes and our conditions or circumstances are the effect. So to improve your surrounding circumstances, which we create by the way of our thoughts, we must improve our thoughts.

Hope this helps!

Geroge

I see the “self” as simply an abstract term that is used to collectively describe all aspects of a person (the mind, body, and soul)…such as the term outfit collectively describes the pants, shirt, shoes, etc. all at once. So when someone mentions self-improvement it encompasses all aspects of the self, albeit they may be working on a particular aspect more than another at the moment…but I also don’t believe each area is separate from the other, in that you can work on one without affecting the others. For example, physical exercise obviously works the body, but can help bring mental clarity, and better over-all well-being (soul).

Personally, I don’t like the term self-discovery. I don’t like the idea that the self is something already perfect within us that we must search to uncover…or a potential that we must strive to reach, although we never will.

Instead I do like the term self-improvement. I don’t feel it implies that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Only that one desires a change, that they happen to see as better than the previous/current state. Take the term home-improvement for example, it doesn’t necessarily mean that your home is bad, only that you feel it can be improved upon. Someone may want to remodel their kitchen; it doesn’t mean that their current cabinets are falling apart or that the stove no longer works. They could just want to “upgrade” and make it better – in their eyes. So a new stove wouldn’t be a necessity, but because of that innate human drive to always be better, we go to the store for a better one.

So again, just because something’s better, it doesn’t make the old one bad. It’s just that there’s always someone/something better. If someone holds an Olympic world record, but then someone breaks it, it doesn’t make the original person bad, just that someone has become better – which may drive them to be better than they were before in an effort to get the record back.

So I see self-improvement as a continuous cycle, an ongoing process of making one better today than they were yesterday, and then to be better tomorrow than today.

Self-discovery seems to imply striving towards a goal/potential that one can never reach…which to me sounds a bit defeating. But self-improvement can be seen as setting a goal to be better (even if only a little bit), reaching that goal, then setting another, and so on. So one is constantly setting and reaching goals, which makes one successful every step of the way, and in turn the journey and the destination merge in a wonderful way.

Thanks for the comment. I agree that, as you say, “if more people considered what a self really is, improving it would become a more simple and natural process.”

If this post achieves this point as you describe for someone out there then I am quite satisfied…

I must reply also to your disagreement:

You disagree that “the self is something static that exists prior to any change” and you ask, “Where does such a place exist? If that were so, people would have a complete sense of self when they are babies.”

I believe if you look at the word, “potential,” which I used as a word that could describe “the self,” the answer to your question could be found:

The self certainly can be something static. If it is our potential, then the self could be something greater than our understanding, especially if we do not fully comprehend our potential, which I believe to be true for most people. This static point exists far away and all we have to set our course or direction is the “reference point” you speak of… We “aim” for a general direction and “fine-tune” our aim as we “miss” the target — we learn and grow and come closer to our self as time progresses…

Thanks for provoking thought…

Kent (The Financial Philosopher)

What I consider to be my self is a particular point of reference that I have repeated over and over. It is only through repetition that the self gains a sense of permanence or absolute-ness. I disagree entirely with you that the self is something static that exists prior to any change. Where does such a place exist? If that were so, people would have a complete sense of self when they are babies.

So, in regards to self-improvement, what we are improving is really from where we reference who we are. People generally seek information about self-improvement when their reference point sucks. The truth is that you can reference any point at any given time and, through repetition, it will become the self.

I think a lot of people get stuck in the seeking aspect of who they are. They keep looking for a guru, a book or a new program that has all the answers, but they never find the One. By doing so, their sense of self begins to evaporate. They become a self-improvement chameleon. They eventually give up and accept whatever they were to begin with.

In that sense, I commend you for looking at what is we are trying to improve. I think if more people considered what a self really is, improving it would become a more simple and natural process.

Wow! What a powerful comment! Your “hug” has been received! I appreciate your personal experience of “uncovering.”

I am certainly no PhD but the study of philosophy has opened my mind to the ideas of self-awareness reflected in this post.

I wish you well in your recovery and “uncovery!” Please be my guest at my blog, The Financial Philosopher, which urges readers that the key to financial success is also the key to success in ALL areas of our lives — Self-awareness.

For an introduction, try this blog post that is related to the re-discovery of your inner child:

http://financialphilosopher.typepad.com/thefinancialphilosopher/2008/06/the-process-of-unlearning.html

“It is a pity that, as one gradually gains experience, one loses one’s youth.” ~ Vincent van Gogh

…but it does not need to be this way…

Thanks again for the comment. Consider yourself hugged in return…

Kent (The Financial Philosopher)

THEN I read this and follow your steps, uncovering, uncovering and WHAMO! It hits me. It only took 3 minutes, but, I had 6 months of self discovery notes to refer to while doing this.

If I could give you a hug right now I would.

I believe you frame my case quite well (and quite concisely)! The issue here is at least partially semantics, but that could be the biggest problem: There are many who see ‘the self’ as something that is flawed and it is my opinion that social conventions, media noise and language are telling us this.

If we can become the master of language, we may take a significant step toward becoming the master of our self…

“Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man.” ~ Martin Heidegger

Thanks again for your thoughts…

Kent (The Financial Philosopher)