The parable of the crow and the eagle shows very nicely that to compare oneself or to assess one's possibilities unrealistically is more likely to lead to difficulties.
Know thyself is a very well-known saying in the West. I think, despite its depth, it is still misunderstood.
In the Buddhist tradition they speak of the "emptiness of things". Unfortunately Westerners interpret this with a "nothing". But since a nothing can neither be imagined nor exist, it is most likely to be interpreted with "death", the thought of death is the closed door that does not allow further thoughts. But this is not what the Teaching means. The emptiness of things means the impossibility of fixing a certain state.
This implies that the fixation of a certain identity can only ever come too late, because every present moment already demands to be able to take on as many identities as possible, which one tries to explain with the term empathy. Therefore, without a context I cannot say at all who I actually am, because my being always depends on that context.
I don't like the term "the better version of myself" very much, because there is something product-like about it, as if the human being is a kind of promotional article through the version of himself. For me, every version of myself has the connotation of a play, and ... But ... if I look at it that way, then I have to admit that I'm probably also a theatre player, although I don't need to tie myself to the play.
The emptiness of a thing... I imagine it like an empty stage, which is always only temporarily occupied by something that is just needed, but which basically holds no attribution due to the constant change. That includes all levels of systems.
Interesting reflection about emptiness. Indeed, the term is usually interpreted as nothing, because it is viewed from the point of view of the absence of something stable and not of the presence of something variable.
I do believe in the permanence of something static though. An essence, which is precisely that which changes, for something must change must be, and in terms of being, that is, existence, is immutable. We say that something changes constantly, but to change, it must first be, and that is the essence. At least, that is the way I see it.
The difference between Buddhist philosophy and Western philosophy is that the first one studies the whole in a personal, subjective, and first person way. While Western philosophy does so impersonately, objectively and in the third person.
A midpoint for me between the two is the most harmonious state.
As traffic is low, it's tempting to stay with you a little longer. I just have finished dinner and have some time ... so.... a longer comment is coming :) Thanks for being attentive. I really appreciate to have a qualitative conversation.
Instead of essence I would rather say presence, because this also contains a "being". When we talk about essence in the West, it is understood as a substance, also as something concentrated, which can be derived from chemistry, for example. But since this, just like substance, rather refers to something material, it doesn't meet the fleetingness that is meant by this term - at least in the Buddhist tradition. They go even further and say that in identifying a self there is basically nothing at all that makes that self tangible. The dissolution of all self is therefore the highest degree of liberation from suffering. But I am not telling you anything new with this. ... What they would call present would be consciousness, but this is only continuously carried through in its non-substantial way.
I think that if you talk about essence and want to agree with Buddhist teachings to the extent that you are talking about an exchangeable essence, which, depending on the situation, sometimes from this, sometimes from that, and sometimes from another perspective in contact with the environment (with people, for example), you can integrate something like a temporal factor.
As I now understand it, when I am in a direct meeting with someone - that is, in my real time - I can "see" my inner resistances germinate every moment as they emerge (don't know, maybe ten times in five minutes?), and I can overcome them by changing my perspective to my dialogue partner. I need this flexibility because my conversation partner is also able to take on this or that identity in very quick changes.
If, for example, you are watching a football match in a stadium and you, as an ardent fan of your team, suddenly find yourself in the opposing block, what flexibility in thinking and acting would be required of you in order not to get into trouble through provocation and counter-provocation? It would not help to hold on to your fan identity. If, for example, a woman were to be pushed between two benches, what change of perspective would be required to help her? And so on.
Such moments can be divided into smaller and smaller units of time, and any interaction would then show us that they always present themselves as a form of being only in the present forms of changing nature. For example, if you, who would be said about to be a "rather quiet person", were suddenly to find aggressive, fast and loud expressions, would it be said that you were someone else at that moment?
Therefore, I would think that what one notices as a fixed characteristic of the other or what one thinks about oneself merely says that one is following not very different daily routines and developed a habit. But if you look more closely, moments are always different somehow, and that's where we hold on to an identity, where it disturbs or even annoys us - shaking up routine. If there is suddenly no coffee in the morning, we can in principle very quickly acquire another identity, except for the one who annoyingly says: "But I need this coffee! The label "I feel trouble" is important so that you can say: "Alright, I feel trouble." Pause. "It's okay to be troubled." Pause. "This moment shall pass".
I can basically agree with you on this essence, because I know you wouldn't insist on it and I wouldn't insist on the presence the other way around. I also agree that there seems to be a tendency for character traits. But that they have less meaning than is generally attributed to them. As if they were the ruby in a ring.
I describe the essence as what it perceives, so that everything that changes does, except the fact that we perceive that it changes. We can say that someone is quiet or not, depending on the circumstances, but we will always say that someone is himself. That something is what we are, and what makes us the same today as the day we were born.
With the term essence I don't mean something material but something immaterial that perceives changes in matter, mood, and other sensations and feelings, since what it feels, that is, what it perceives, is always the same, an I don't know what to which we give the name of soul.
Maybe in Buddhism have something similar when they talk about rebirth or reincarnation and liberation. Because for something to be reborn, it must have been born before, and although it changes and becomes different, it still is. In the same way that for something to be liberated it must first have been in another state (slavery), but remain the same thing.
What philosophers and religious call it soul, psychologists give it the name of psyche, and that is what makes the human function as a unit, because in effect, that is one of the main qualities of the soul, that of being one.
I also appreciate having quality talks, and as for me, the discussion could be extended indefinitely. :)
Thank you, I think this is an excellent addition to your writing up here. I have - unfortunately - nothing to add to it. :)