This post is a reflection on the topic of self-knowledge which was triggered by Curt Jaimungal's philosophizing about it in The Most Terrifying Philosopher I’ve Encountered. 

Curt argues that "Know Thyself" has become a slogan that is so misunderstood that it's turned into a nuisance. He equates self-knowledge with introspection and highlights its narcissistic nature. Further claiming that we have to develop ethical capacities and responsibilities instead of continuous self-absorption with self-knowledge. 

To start with, it's true that it has become a common misconception that self-knowledge is egoistical and narcissistic in nature. However, it is not what maxim "Know Thyself" means at all. Why would we want to continue to spread false understanding of this maxim? Let's dive into its deeper meaning. 

The first question that arises, "How can you know how to act ethically if you do not know wherefrom your thoughts, intentions and desires come from?" What is the ground for one's ethic behavior? Is it based on socially accepted norms? And if the source of ethical behavior lies outside of oneself, how can one claim it to be an earned virtue and not an imposed unquestioned rule or just an automatic physiological reflex mechanism? So that triggers the question: wherefrom all thoughts, intentions and desires come from in the first place? 

But that triggers an investigation, a dynamic questioning: how to approach such a question? From the perspective of the external world or the internal narrative, physiology or psychology? What do concepts like exteriority and interiority even mean? In simple terms, we call stimuli from the world external and stimuli that are generated from memory and feelings internal. External and internal in relation to what? In relation to our body.

But here lies a subtle nuance: what do we identify ourselves with? With the body? Or with the mind? Or with something else? Where to draw the line? As eventually all our conception and perception are internal with relation to the subject, the observer of phenomena. And phenomena or everything observed are the objects of our thinking, i.e. the mind. 

So if we identify with the body we will fall in the usual misconceptions that the knowledge about the body is the knowledge about oneself. Then living in our thoughts we call introspection and equate it with knowing ourselves, i.e. the bodies. But that only happens because we haven't investigated the dichotomy of exteriority and interiority itself. Where is it coming from? In relation to what? 

If we do it, we will discover an interesting turn. What we take to be the objects of introspection is in fact the observed phenomena, or the objects of our thinking. So they are equally objects for the observer, the subject. Just like "external" phenomena. Both are the observed with regard to the observer, the mind. But here we are still identifying ourselves but in this case with the mind.

The next question that pops up naturally, "So which dichotomy is more true — exteriority/interiority with regard to the body, or the observed/the observer with regard to the mind?" And here we are getting closer to the implied import of the maxim "Know Thyself". 

Are we the body with its dichotomy of exteriority and interiority? Or are we the mind with its dichotomy of the observed and the observer? Which is it? But the question suggests something entirely different — to eschew predefined conclusions and leave the question open. What if we are neither one, nor the other? What if they are simply concepts that we have to mentally renounce even to attempt to answer such a question? What if we have to still the thinking from all concepts completely to come to an insight and experiential understanding? 

In this way we come to the realisation that if we want to approach the question of "Know Thyself" we need to eschew all identification of all sorts and patiently see what happens in that space of no thoughts. And that is what the question "Know Thyself" points to. Not to identify with more sophisticated concepts but to renounce the very mechanism of identification. 

So to come back to the first misconception, that self-knowledge is "egoistical and narcissistic". It is diametrically opposite to that as we have to leave all our identities behind in order to (potentially) see what lies there. It's like peeling an onion. Instead of piling up more concepts. 

What does it mean in practice? If I don't mentally identify with my body, job, relatives, friends, countries, ideologies, etc. am I not free from them? Mentally. It doesn't mean I will avoid all relationships, run away to a cave and meditate — that's an impossibility (even in a cave one is surrounded by nature and needs to eat something). But that the model of thinking is not constructed from the perspective of attachment. So one cannot be outside of relationships. It just means there are no thoughts of attachment to what happens. 

In that sense self-knowledge is not divorced from relationships at all. And envelops everything and everyone. Where everything may potentially become a stimulus for an attachment or freedom from thoughts. In that way develops equanimity and dispassion. As there are fewer and fewer hooks in the matrix of phenomena. Thus helping to shed the layers of an onion instead of growing new ones. 

It is only when one is free from identities of any kind when one starts to behave ethically at all. As such thinking is not directed by imposed rigid norms and acts out of situational demands without prejudices and biases (in the limit) based on developed equanimity and dispassion. And in such action the process of self-knowledge unfolds itself. 

To come back to Curt's words about loving your neighbour and responsibility before God, only when one's thinking is free from identities of any kind one may truly discover what is ethical behavior and see clearly what action to take (responsibility in the sense of an ability to respond). Without it there are external standards and identities (e.g. donor/recipient) and ethical behavior just turns to reciprocal altruism. 

So introspection and analyzing of "the inner world" have nothing to do with self-knowledge. As they both just mean experiencing the objects by the subject. While "Know Thyself" calls for investigation into the subject itself and even beyond — where is this dichotomy coming from? Who am I? 

Self-absorption, rightly understood, can be a doorway rather than a trap. It doesn't mean to quit all relationships but to quit an attachment to them — the attachment to image-building mechanism in thinking. And, again, what does "self" refers to in this case? If it refers to the body or the mind, then self-absorption is indeed egoistical as it is absorption into artificially constructed identity. When however it is understood to be the ground from where all thoughts and intentions are coming from, then it turns into a sharp razor to cut all layers of identities to hang up to. So this is absorption into What Is instead of artificially constructed identities of thinking. 

In that regard one may see that self-knowledge is not always rational from the standpoint of the world full of identities as one is expected to be identified with one thing or another. It may be called suprarational in the beginning. As it may be guided by an intuition and a hunch rather than by reason alone. But given enough nourishment and attention it becomes rational in its flowering of ethics. Ethics that is not based on imposed norms and external authorities but that which comes out of the deep abiding in the ground of being. 

For those who still think self-knowledge is egoistic and it's better to help the world in every way possible. I would like to remind the basic question of the sages, "How can one who cannot help oneself first, help the world?" What is the ground from which such action comes? Is it the ground of natural peacefulness and stillness or agitation and worry? And here I leave it to the reader to think about it, as it is not an attempt to establish an opinion but an open invitation to ponder...