In many cases, self-doubt and self-criticism are driven by emotional wounds perhaps as a result of neglect, abuse, betrayal, or any number of psychological assaults individuals may suffer on the way to their present stage in life. Trauma has the effect of focus the mind on the environment from which dangers arise. Trauma has two kinds of effects. First, trauma teaches the sufferer that he or she is in some way expendable or irrelevant. This can be a hard lesson to overcome as the individual learns to love him or her self. Trauma also makes it difficult to free the one’s feelings and thoughts from the world around one in order to attend to, come to understand and to love oneself. The process of healing leads through conscious connection with and acceptance of the wounded part along with any associated thoughts and feelings. The person who experiences such a emotional healing is freed from the doubt and criticism generated by the distressed part. He or she won’t be easily led to doubt the reality of what happened. However, the individual may not as easily be able to understand why it happened in order to repeat the process elsewhere. Coming to an understanding of why healing happens also means healing from philosophical injuries sustained on the way to their present stage of education or professional development.

Understanding the process of healing correctly would have several important consequences. First, the process may be deliberately repeated with respect to other wounds or areas of distress. Second, the individual may serve as a guide and help to others. Finally, understanding the process is a matter of understanding oneself as a living human being. Such deep understanding promotes authentic self-love. However, understanding what self-love is and how it is possible and the ability to recognize it when it occurs, requires healing from the philosophic wound.

There exist patterns in modern daily life and education that constitute specific obstacles to authentic self-love. These patterns grow out of and reinforce an extroverted mindset that orients individuals away from inner experience, consequently making self-presence difficult. In conversational speech ‘extroverted’ refers to being outgoing. In this context the term refers to a pattern of attention and of questioning that is oriented away from inner experience and toward external events. This extroverted pattern in conscious living does not prevent folks from attending to and making connection with inner sources of distress, though it does make the chances of healing less likely in ordinary daily living; however, extroverted consciousness will never understand of the process of inner healing.

The societal and educational patterns that promote this extroverted orientation away from self-presence include almost exclusive reference to performance outcomes and consequences to quantify achievements and personal growth and a formal scientific training in education all along the line. These two factors are mutually reinforcing and make it a challenge for individuals to properly conceive their own inner process of healing, communicate it to others, or incorporate it into a full knowledge and understanding of the self.

The focus on outcomes and consequences in all areas of modern living is consistent with our scientific culture and takes its cue from the way in which school children are taught to think about truth and objectivity in contrast to opinion and subjectivity. Beginning with the basic division between fact and opinion, students learn that being objective is good while being subjective is bad. Believing objective facts is a sign of intelligence, while placing too much faith in subjective opinion in not. Here is the first step in the orientation away from self-presence. Self-presence is subjective conscious experience. But such subjective experience has no currency in formal prescriptions for scientific, fact-based, objective thinking.

Students are generally taught two lessons about objectivity drawn from the natural sciences: that it is objective truth is public and it is sensible. Objectivity is measured by ‘publicity’. That is, if other people agree, then the idea is objective. In the history of scientific discoveries, no experimental results are accepted as valid unless they can be replicated independently by other scientists. A single experiment, especially if it involves a small sample, is never sufficient to establish the validity or truth of a scientific idea or hypothesis. An opinion is something that Is held privately (I am the only one who thinks it) or is held by a sub-group. I am the only one who thinks something. A lone scientist may turn out to be correct, but he or she cannot know that he or she is correct unless the results are reproduced by others. The scientist must entertain self-doubt until the results are confirmed by others. 

Objective facts are sensible. Science follows the empirical method, which deliberately restricts its observations to sensible data. Scientists do not perform experiments on data that are not given to the senses and that cannot be weighed or measured. Consequently, anything that cannot be seen, heard, etc. is by definition not objectively observable. And, what cannot be objectively observed cannot be objectively verified. As a result, science can obtain no objective facts about anything in human life that is not given to the senses and subject to weights and measures. Here the scientist’s methodical self-doubt comes closer to home. Making an objective observation is simply a matter of seeing what is there to be seen. However, bias is a psychological blind spot. A biased observer does not see what is there to be seen. A biased observer, instead, may see what he or she wants to see. However, the act of seeing is not something that can be measured except when instruments are applied to the sense organs to determine whether they are responding to physical stimuli. Even if scientists were subjected to audiological and visual testing prior to entering the laboratory every day, most of what counts as bias is not a defect in the sense organs. Most bias is psychological. The scientist, therefore, must constantly entertain self-doubt. Am I being an objective observer or not? How would I know?

By contrast with objectivity, subjectivity is personal and non-sensible. One’s own subjective mental and emotional experience will never be sensibly available to others for independent verification. These formal lessons in and about objectivity are of no help in the world of subjective human experience, thinking and loving. Since I am the only one to whom my thoughts are given and (non-sensibly) observable, no one else would be able to confirm that I did in fact have a thought, never mind able to verify the content of the thought. Since, my feelings arise only within my own conscious experience, no one else is able to verify directly whether I had a feeling, never mind what the feeling was about. To be sure, there may occur indirect evidence about thoughts and feelings as communicated non-verbally in facial expressions, tone, etc. But the external observer, relying on sensible data is limited to making educated guesses and hypotheses.

Further, subjective experience and references to self-presence are suspect, being formally associated with bias and prejudice. In formal educational settings, being objective means not being biased, whereas to be subjective means the opposite, that is, to be biased. The scientific method along with methodological approaches in every discipline are designed to limit and make corrections for anything that might be properly considered subjective. Objectivity is achieved in so far as we are able to avoid being influenced by prejudice or bias by, for instance, being focused on exactly and only what’s in the room at the moment. History, prior judgments (whether true or not), pre-existing interests or desires (whether good and noble or not) are all sanctioned as illegitimate. What count as evidence and as legitimate grounds for argument is what is available for sensible observation and interrogation to all parties at the moment. Finally, there is a democracy of questioning as well. All questions are treated equally, and none may be excluded or disqualified as being beside the point. Where the desire for truth has no special status in the face of those who would muddy the waters, sow confusion, or trade in tribalistic thinking, no standard exists for the exclusion of false equivalencies, unsupported allegations, nor many other recognized forms of fallacious reasoning.

Under the influence of this high cultural standard of objectivity, everyday common sense strives to imitate this extroverted mentality.  Opinion, bias and subjectivity all come to mean similar things. The standards for proof and legitimacy are conceived along the lines of the objective-subjective dichotomy. Children and adults all carry away the prize in any argument if they can successfully assert, “That’s just your opinion.” Similarly, from the classroom to the workplace, to courts and legislatures, to the dinner table, every argument or dispute is expected to satisfy the requirements of a scientific experiment. Nothing is deemed relevant that does not come directly from the data and material right in front of the disputants. No ideas or interests from the past should be allowed to influence or inform how individuals interpret what is going on right now in the present.

On this basic, popular formulation of the conditions of objectivity, there can be no objective facts about personal experience and no self-knowledge. If objectivity must meet the requirements of publicity, then there can be no objective knowledge about whether a thought or a feeling occurred or what either might have been about. First of all, I cannot ‘see’ and confirm the fact by looking in a mirror. The most relevant data on the occurrence of the thought or feeling are not reflected back to me. Second, my observer’s hypotheses about what I am thinking and feeling can only be confirmed by asking me. People claim to know what others are thinking or feeling even without being told, but such cannot be knowledge in the strict sense because the observer does not have access to the most relevant data, which are mental operations. The observer is in the position of one who may have very good reasons to suspect the truth, but has to choose whether to believe my report about my inner experience or to doubt it. Neither his or her suspicions nor belief in my report fulfill the requirements of publicity required for the common notion of objectivity. What I know and what he or she believes about me are both grounded in my personal experience.  On the commonsense account, I cannot assert as an objective fact that I felt confused or curious, that I did or did not have a question, that I got an insight or understood something, or that I know anything about myself at all. I must live in perpetual self-doubt.

The problem is that I do not really live in such perpetual self-doubt, but I must at times pretend to do so according to the requirements of common conventions but accepting that my own ideas are simply my opinions and that I do not know what I really do know even about myself, or else take my stand on experience alone. What I mean by that is, although my private experience dose not measure up to the stature of public knowledge, it is nonetheless my experience which cannot be refuted. Thankfully there are institutions and movements that defend my right to my unassailable private experience. The hitch is that any experience, like any scientific observation, spontaneously gives rise to a question about that experience or observation. After sensing or seeing something new, we spontaneously ask “What’s that? What is that all about?” And, should I turn to those same institutions and movements for guidance in the interpretation of my inner experience I find that they have only the common, public notion of objectivity at their disposal. As a consequence I am left in a state of constant second-guessing, psychological uncertainty and fruitless rumination. To take my stand on experience alone while avoiding the abyss off self-doubt means preventing the emergence of or the serious consideration of such questions. For such questions lead to hypotheses required verification and heading in the direction of knowledge. If I would be accepted by and meet the approval of others, I must lie even to myself or at lease deny my own native curiosity. The thrust of formal educational practice is an orientation away from self-presence, and the cumulative impact is pervasive anxiety.  Healing the philosophic wound of socialized extroversion with its mistaken ideas of objectivity begins with understanding what we are doing when we get insights and pass judgments on the validity of those insights. But here we run into another difficulty related to a pervasive democratic bias against judgments. But that is for another article.