I think controlling can be part of personality without being core self. It would seem something like controlling would be to protect the core self. Whether it is something that needs changing, is up to the person - ie. does it interfere with something you want/a way you want to be in the world and if so is changing it worth the effort/loss for you to do so? I thinkthe subjective decision -'worth it or not' is not the point. Can my 'desire' to be different be part of my authentic self even though my actions don't show the effects of that desire? Say I want to be more loving but I only yell at people, does that desire to be loving have any weight at all in defining oneself?

Do you remember the part in Becket by Jean Anouilh where Henry complains that Becket is always defining things and Becket responds by saying without definition the world has no shape? I believe that. I can identify with your desire for definition. probably I'm just playing with lots of smoke and mirrors and entertaining myself for no purpose whatsoever - but still...

Is the fact that I love these sorts of discussions part of my authentic self? Possibly, but I would more say it is more a part of my personality. I have different identities which direct my personality depending upon whether I am being professor, lawyer, friend, lover etc. And although my personality is somewhat the same - it manifests somewhat differently in each situation.Yeah, this would be our different 'states' that Siegel talks about. I think I 'get' the personality definition.