But what is selected as a personal memory also needs to fit the current idea that we have of ourselves. Let’s suppose you have always been a very kind person, b

But what is selected as a personal memory also needs to fit the current idea that we have of ourselves. Let’s suppose you have always been a very kind person, but after a very distressing experience you have developed a strong aggressive trait that now suits you. Not only has your behaviour changed, your personal narrative has too. If you are now asked to describe yourself, you might include past events previously omitted from your narrative – for example, instances in which you acted aggressively. I have been pondering on a similar question for some time now. I have an amateurish and somewhat Jungian theory: I think the "real me" is a collection of archetypes that are constantly struggling to take control over the mind and body. These archetypes are also constantly being improved on or new ones are being acquired through life time experiences. The "I" or the consciousness is nothing more than an observer and it also has the role to create a reasonable explanation, a justification if you will, of the motives behind actions. But the motives of the "I" are entirely produced by its collection of archetypes. This, in reality, would mean that the consciousness mind has no real choice in what one does! It is the archetypes that drive us to do or say things and the conscious mind just observes and creates a reason out of our memories and knowledge. This would explain situations where, for example, one gets angry and says something that offends and hurts another person, but they would then almost immediately ask themselves "Why the heck did I even say/do that?" and the conscious mind creates a justification. After that another archetype prevails, e.g.; the one of compassion, and an apology would follow. Of course, none of this explains how archetypes came to be in the first place.