On the Problem of Excessive Self-Doubt.

On the Problem of Excessive Self-Doubt.

 

The popular conception of Humility seems to depend on the presumption that one “knows that one does not know.” Yet this may be a fallacy. The presence of a Second Subject means that it is impossible to “know that one does not know” because that presupposes that the Unconscious does not Know.

 

In many cases, the tendency to second-guess one’s self may be a subtle method by which one perpetuates an Inferiority/Superiority Complex. It has long been known in Jungian psychology that the two are the same: The Inferiority Complex and the Superiority complex. I will now delineate why this is so.

 

To Question Oneself depends upon the existence of two fictional characters: The Questioner and the Questioned. When one “questions one’s self”, one acts out both roles on the stage of one’s mind, and this play takes place largely in words (i.e. Directed Thinking).

 

In the presence of the two characters, a Knower is entirely effaced from consideration. Neither the Questioner nor the Questioned, definitionally, KNOWS. The Questioned cannot know. The moment that he doubts, he or she renounces Knowledge. The Questioner does not know, and for that reason he or she places the burden of proof upon the Questioned.

 

The Questioned and the Questioner depend upon one another for their supposed existence. They also depend upon the absence of Knowledge; the moment that Knowledge appears, both disappear entirely.

 

The Questioner embodies the Superiority Complex; The Questioned embodies the Inferiority Complex. This is why the two conditions (that of Superiority and Inferiority) arise mutually.

 

For this reason, it appears absurd to develop a philosophy of sheep wherein one constantly doubts oneself. It would be more practical, sensible, and appropriate to one’s well-being to forego self-doubt, in many cases, and to persist in the enacting of a working hypothesis until the method has run its course and a new one has taken its place. One should not be reprimanded for one’s self-c onfidence in this regard.

 

The origin of the Questioner-Questioned relationship arguably originated in Christian Society. The original conception was probably between God and Soul. God was the Questioner, yet he never revealed His knowledge, always putting the burden of proof on the Questioned. It was also conceivable that He gave the Questioned Free Will, allowing for God to be Ignorant of certain things of which the Questioned was aware because those things fell outside of His jurisdiction. The Soul of the individual was always the Questioned, because he did not Know God’s Plan, yet he had to answer for himself.

 

This illusion was perpetuated in pre-critical Christian Society through the relationship between members of the community. Christians, not one of them Knowing God’s Plan and largely claiming not to, had to make the chief topic of conversation in almost every discussion that of What God Wanted them to do. They developed a habit of formalizing the past, of analyzing memories, and of asking ONE ANOTHER for insight, rather than themselves. When one asks another for approval, corroboration, or insight, one enters into the negotiating position of the Questioned, and the other becomes the Questioner, passing judgement.

 

Dm.A.A.