Identity: How do you define it?

[Ren]

There is an issue of whether the first awareness of self in a child is an awakening, or a fresh creation, a second birth. I think of it as a gradual awakening of something laid down during gestation (analogous to the way that a mother produces the eggs of her grandchildren in her unborn daughter). The problem I have is that if this awareness isn’t an awakening of something there already but a new thing, then we may have to consider that the self is destroyed during sleep or unconsciousness then recreated afresh on awakening.

I think that the awakening to self isn’t restricted to early childhood. It’s a process and there can be a series of awakenings that carry on into adulthood each of which brings us closer to who and what we are - but this doesn’t happen to everyone. Again we have to avoid confusing experiences and attributes with the self even with these. I don’t think these later awakenings change the self but hold ever clearer mirrors up so that we can see better.

This is interesting, but my question was not about the coming into being of self-consciousness (the self's awareness of itself as a self). It was about the coming into being of the self as such.

If you believe that what happens to us is only a kind of 'bag pack' to the true self, then the self is not affected by contingency. And since coming into being is a kind of contingency, that can't apply to it either, so it must always have existed. It is an immortal soul that just happens to be contingently embodied and historically embedded.

I'm not saying this view is wrong by the way, just that I cannot see how it can avoid leading back to a conception of the self as an immortal soul. And if it is an immortal soul, then it would make sense that only by some kind of divine revelation can we mere contingent beings develop genuine awareness of our true self.

 

[John K]

This is interesting, but my question was not about the coming into being of self-consciousness (the self's awareness of itself as a self). It was about the coming into being of the self as such.

If you believe that what happens to us is only a kind of 'bag pack' to the true self, then the self is not affected by contingency. And since coming into being is a kind of contingency, that can't apply to it either, so it must always have existed. It is an immortal soul that just happens to be contingently embodied and historically embedded.

I'm not saying this view is wrong by the way, just that I cannot see how it can avoid leading back to a conception of the self as an immortal soul. And if it is an immortal soul, then it would make sense that only by some kind of divine revelation can we mere contingent beings develop genuine awareness of our true self.

I was exploring and not being clear enough - I'll carry on a bit more, but I'm rambling around this rather than expressing any sense of certainty.

I have two reasons for exploring awareness of self: Firstly, what I was considering was whether the self comes into being around the time we first become aware of it, maybe even as a consequence of becoming self-aware - or whether it exists before then. I don't much like the idea of the former, because it implies an interdependency between awareness and existence that is only a step away from saying the self is intermittent. So my feeling is that the self is not dependent on self-awareness. There are then a couple of possibilities - either (i) it comes into existence at the moment of conception, during gestation, or infancy; or (ii) it's existence is independent of a physical host but can exist 'symbiotically' with one (in quotes because it is a metaphor) through some kind of association process at some point during gestation or infancy. Both seem plausible though different people will give different comparative levels of probability to each. I favour (ii) on religious grounds - if I were to constrain myself to purely secular grounds then I'd go for the self coming into existence sometime in early gestation.

There is another reason for looking at the kind of awareness we have of the self though, because it is the source of the subjective information we have about it. It can no more see itself directly than can our eyes - they both need some sort of mirror, and that means that what we can see is not the actual thing, but a virtual copy of it reflected back and one which will have distortions. The main distortion is probably confusing the self with the ego, which is both full of attributes and only has access to a part of the whole psyche, whereas the self is at the core of everything within our psyche. It's even possible that this can flip, and the ego identifies the self as in opposition and conflates it as part of the shadow.

There is a question you hint at which is whether the self can develop or whether it is an irreducible atom of I-ness. Just pondering this, it seems to me that it's a subset of a larger issue, which includes whether the self exists at all, or at the other extreme whether there is anything but self, whether there is only one self, or many of them, how does a self come into existence if they do exist, and can they cease to exist? LOL tug on this string and every impossible issue in philosophy seems to come bouncing along into sight! For what it's worth, I think that selves are immortal, but they do develop so that contingency does leave it's mark - I cannot begin to say how there might be structure in a self or how the process of change would affect it, but there are no doubt volumes written in Sanskrit that make a stab at it. It seems to me that they can in a sense grow or shrink in response to the way they interact with their physical existence, primarily based on their choices - there are religious ways of expressing this, as there are in Jung and other experiential psychological or philosophical systems, but as far as I can a lot of this is analogous to chemical science, while study of the self requires the psychological analogue of particle physics.

I still keep coming back to the relationship between identity and the self. Is the self it's own identity, or is identity a label attached to the self plus certain other attributes? We can define identity in a number of different ways, and I don't think these are of necessity mutually exclusive, but each of value in a variety of domains. I would say that at its most fundamental, a self is its own identity - the other definitions seem to me to be associated with a variety of different composites for the puropse of functional utility.

Like I said, I'm exploring this as I write Ren, so I'm speculating quite a lot, even if I put my spiritual hat on.

 

[TheFool]

Identity is a tricky word. Some might identify themselves with variety of mental constructs as parts of who or what we are. But in the end all mental constructs are “outside” and perceived within our mind. Despite we might identify ourselves with any of the constructs none of them are lasting but ever changing. Therefore we need to accept that as our nature or reject it as our true source of being.

There is a subtle part within everyone’s beingness that just is, kind of a sense of “I am”. This Iamness seems to exists no matter where or when we are and it seems to be unchanging, yet not rigid. More like a lotus flower floating on the surface of water allowing the water to move as it will. Our mind and the mental constructs are like that water, transparent but sometimes a but murky. The part of our awareness that perceives our minds and yet is aware of itself being in this ever blooming present of nowness, is like of that lotus. By reminding yourself of that sense of beingness, you can start to see more clearly what is actually you and what is not. Sometimes this can become very apparent and it feels like there is a part of you that is beyond everything else, just silently observing.

The more often you “reach” that state of seeing, the longer it lasts. First it might feel scary. Suddenly everything you have identified yourself with is now seen as something that you are not, fundamentally. In the end this is what you have always been. Just not aware of it.

 

[Ren]

I was exploring and not being clear enough - I'll carry on a bit more, but I'm rambling around this rather than expressing any sense of certainty.

I have two reasons for exploring awareness of self: Firstly, what I was considering was whether the self comes into being around the time we first become aware of it, maybe even as a consequence of becoming self-aware - or whether it exists before then. I don't much like the idea of the former, because it implies an interdependency between awareness and existence that is only a step away from saying the self is intermittent. So my feeling is that the self is not dependent on self-awareness. There are then a couple of possibilities - either (i) it comes into existence at the moment of conception, during gestation, or infancy; or (ii) it's existence is independent of a physical host but can exist 'symbiotically' with one (in quotes because it is a metaphor) through some kind of association process at some point during gestation or infancy. Both seem plausible though different people will give different comparative levels of probability to each. I favour (ii) on religious grounds - if I were to constrain myself to purely secular grounds then I'd go for the self coming into existence sometime in early gestation.

There is another reason for looking at the kind of awareness we have of the self though, because it is the source of the subjective information we have about it. It can no more see itself directly than can our eyes - they both need some sort of mirror, and that means that what we can see is not the actual thing, but a virtual copy of it reflected back and one which will have distortions. The main distortion is probably confusing the self with the ego, which is both full of attributes and only has access to a part of the whole psyche, whereas the self is at the core of everything within our psyche. It's even possible that this can flip, and the ego identifies the self as in opposition and conflates it as part of the shadow.

There is a question you hint at which is whether the self can develop or whether it is an irreducible atom of I-ness. Just pondering this, it seems to me that it's a subset of a larger issue, which includes whether the self exists at all, or at the other extreme whether there is anything but self, whether there is only one self, or many of them, how does a self come into existence if they do exist, and can they cease to exist? LOL tug on this string and every impossible issue in philosophy seems to come bouncing along into sight! For what it's worth, I think that selves are immortal, but they do develop so that contingency does leave it's mark - I cannot begin to say how there might be structure in a self or how the process of change would affect it, but there are no doubt volumes written in Sanskrit that make a stab at it. It seems to me that they can in a sense grow or shrink in response to the way they interact with their physical existence, primarily based on their choices - there are religious ways of expressing this, as there are in Jung and other experiential psychological or philosophical systems, but as far as I can a lot of this is analogous to chemical science, while study of the self requires the psychological analogue of particle physics.

I still keep coming back to the relationship between identity and the self. Is the self it's own identity, or is identity a label attached to the self plus certain other attributes? We can define identity in a number of different ways, and I don't think these are of necessity mutually exclusive, but each of value in a variety of domains. I would say that at its most fundamental, a self is its own identity - the other definitions seem to me to be associated with a variety of different composites for the puropse of functional utility.

Like I said, I'm exploring this as I write Ren, so I'm speculating quite a lot, even if I put my spiritual hat on.

Woops, sorry for not returning to this, the notification must have slipped by me at the time.

I'll get back to you tomorrow probably, my energy levels are low right now

 

[Ren]

There is a subtle part within everyone’s beingness that just is, kind of a sense of “I am”. This Iamness seems to exists no matter where or when we are and it seems to be unchanging, yet not rigid. More like a lotus flower floating on the surface of water allowing the water to move as it will. Our mind and the mental constructs are like that water, transparent but sometimes a but murky. The part of our awareness that perceives our minds and yet is aware of itself being in this ever blooming present of nowness, is like of that lotus. By reminding yourself of that sense of beingness, you can start to see more clearly what is actually you and what is not. Sometimes this can become very apparent and it feels like there is a part of you that is beyond everything else, just silently observing.

Very interesting. Does this mean that according to you, this sense of beingness or Iamness has no content? And so that identity is in a sense without content?

Or do you think that there is such a thing as unchanging content?

 

[Ren]

I still keep coming back to the relationship between identity and the self. Is the self it's own identity, or is identity a label attached to the self plus certain other attributes?

I think answering this question depends on how one conceives of identity. If, for example, you think that the idea of a continuously changing identity is untenable (because e.g. that would mean every day we would wake up being a different person, etc.) then I think it would be more compelling to say the self is its own identity. There is a metaphysical cost for this view, in my opinion, which is the acceptance of dualism, i.e. an ontology which is less parsimonious than monism and faces the challenge of accounting for the interaction between substance and contingency, i.e. the self and the terrestrial body it happens to inhabit.

I'm not sure I find the alternative—identity being the self + a set of other attributes—as compelling, because it inherits the same challenges as the first view (dualism, accounting for substance-contingency interaction, etc.) with an added challenge, e.g. explaining how identity fluidity is possible. I mean, you could escape that objection if you said the 'other attributes' are themselves not subject to change, but in that case why not include them in the structure of the self to begin with?

Given the above I'd favor either the unchanging self as the 'pure' identity or else fluid identity that doesn't contain a reference to substance (thus avoiding dualism). At least both options would each have their advantages and challenges. Note that only the second option can accommodate the agency of self-perception in the definition of identity, since self-perception changes over time. But of course the second option also faces huge challenges, especially that of defending the idea that a continuously changing identity is even a coherent concept.

 

[TheFool]

Very interesting. Does this mean that according to you, this sense of beingness or Iamness has no content? And so that identity is in a sense without content?

Or do you think that there is such a thing as unchanging content?

I have not found anything that is inherently tangible but it seems that one aspect of the whole remains still, awareness which appears to illuminate our ability to experience life, existence and non-existence. Awareness seems to be like the oil of a seed which is not seen and yet it exists in all parts of the seed.

When you observe sense sensations there is nothing that is truly tangible. It just appears to be so, like a mirage. The same goes for thoughts, identity, the self. They appear to be there and yet are not. At the same time as mental constructs appear from nowhere, they recede to nowhere. I do not know if the thoughts themselves are aware of themselves or if they appear as ever continuing drops / moments of awareness. But I know that even if there is not thoughts, no identity, no space, no time; awareness remains as aware and awake. As awareness I mean more like wakefulness, beingness. Not attention-awareness.

Difficult to explain...

 

[Ren]

I have not found anything that is inherently tangible but it seems that one aspect of the whole remains still, awareness which appears to illuminate our ability to experience life, existence and non-existence. Awareness seems to be like the oil of a seed which is not seen and yet it exists in all parts of the seed.

When you observe sense sensations there is nothing that is truly tangible. It just appears to be so, like a mirage. The same goes for thoughts, identity, the self. They appear to be there and yet are not. At the same time as mental constructs appear from nowhere, they recede to nowhere. I do not know if the thoughts themselves are aware of themselves or if they appear as ever continuing drops / moments of awareness. But I know that even if there is not thoughts, no identity, no space, no time; awareness remains as aware and awake. As awareness I mean more like wakefulness, beingness. Not attention-awareness.

Difficult to explain...

I think I know what you mean by awareness. A kind of experiential 'openness to the world' which is built into our existential constitution.

We are before we know. Heidegger rather than Descartes

 

[Impact Character]

*throws in a cheeky..*

"doing before understanding"

 

[John K]

I have not found anything that is inherently tangible but it seems that one aspect of the whole remains still, awareness which appears to illuminate our ability to experience life, existence and non-existence. Awareness seems to be like the oil of a seed which is not seen and yet it exists in all parts of the seed.

I think I know what you mean by awareness. A kind of experiential 'openness to the world' which is built into our existential constitution.

We are before we know. Heidegger rather than Descartes

This feels right to me. I can be who I am without being able to think, but thinking without that suchness is pure automaton. It's the same with feelings as with thoughts - these are not me but things that i manifest and experience. Pushing things a bit further though, I find that the whole issue evaporates into a paradox when I realise that my ability to be aware of myself is yet another of these faculties that are not-me: it's just another part of the virtual reality conjured by my psyche which I hope, but cannot be absolutely sure, is tightly linked to some genuine external reality. For me, it's an act of faith, something that has to be treated as an axiom, to accept that there is an external reality that my total range of awareness is mirroring. That includes my self awareness.

I think answering this question depends on how one conceives of identity.

In part, in my early pondering, I was looking more at the semantics of 'identity' as much as it's philosophical depths. It's like the word 'love' which is overused and can mean such different things in different contexts that we really need different words to express them clearly. For example, we've just passed on an old car to one of my sons and as far as the UK authorities are concerned, my identity consists of my driving licence number, linked to ancillary attributes such as my name and address. All they are interested in is distinguishing me physically and uniquely from any other UK driver in a way that they can access easily and link to any car I'm driving (uniquely identified by it's registration and engine chassis numbers) and that's what they mean by identity. There are a myriad similar examples.

 

[John K]

*throws in a cheeky..*

"doing before understanding"

Interestingly, that's probably how animal brains operate on instinct as far as I can see. They are hard-wired to respond with action and without thought to given stimuli - and so are humans too to a considerable extent. I'm sure some of the more developed animals have some power of discriminatory thought as well, but the instinctual balance is far higher with them.

 

[b7$sl1JC0]

Interestingly, that's probably how animal brains operate on instinct as far as I can see. They are hard-wired to respond with action and without thought to given stimuli - and so are humans too to a considerable extent. I'm sure some of the more developed animals have some power of discriminatory thought as well, but the instinctual balance is far higher with them.

Yeah its kind of like that
A dog reacts on a stimulus and barks, the dog has no Ego, he never thinks, hmmm did i bark right? The cat liked it? Maybe is better if i bark lauder tomorrow.
Animals live in the present moment, because they know their identity, the don't criticize their existence, animals accepting them selfs the way they are.
Humans don't, their Ego tries constantly to build their identity, to control everything, their moves, their thoughts, their actions
I get to think that our identity is a product of our Ego, its not actually as. In the eyes of an animal, we are gods because they see the human as it is, they don't see the identity we build for our self, they don't care about it.

We trying to build an identity in our lives
but we forget that we already have one

 

[just me]

https://www.openbible.info/topics/self_denial

Let us consider who we are: how can we divide our self into something that is just each of us alone?
I sought to find God, and was shown my true self. In so doing, I found it impossible to be separated from God.

For someone can easily tread upon one's self values. I was tread upon yesterday, but something happened immediately to open another door. I cannot think my self walked through that small and tiny door by myself, for there were others at work seeking to help me. My true self is not alone, for I walk in the spirit. I see it more as what we identify ourselves with.

 

[Ace17]

Would you say that identity is more about that which is “given” to us in view of sociocultural constructions (including community belonging, religion, nation, etc.)? Or, is it rather something continuously evolving?
Usually this topic relies on the line of questioning referring to “what” we are and "what" we become – could it be that the more appropriate approach is “how” our identity is forged?
Is the issue of identity a matter of a choice?

These questions are only hypothetical for exploring the topic – of course, you're welcome to reply from your own perspective Given that we all come from very different paths of life, it would be interesting to bring together different approaches and get better understanding of our personal views too.

Such an interesting topic, I think about it all of the time!

I think it really depends on the person, honestly. I tend to lean in the direction that it's something that's continuously evolving. As you learn more about the things you're interested in, you may choose not to identify with them anymore, and maybe look to another place for identity.

I know plenty of people who are born into a particular environment, and they absorb it wholly. They believe what their parents believe. They take on all of their traditions, food choices, religions, etc - and they don't question it. I know others who completely rebel against the traditions and ideals of their community, some to be contrarian, but others don't see the logic in participating in certain practices just because everyone else in their community does.

Lots of people I know identify by their ethnicity, their country of origin, or their location in the US, but I never really did. I happen to be born in this body, and I happen to live in the US, but it just feels like dumb luck to me. There are different sides to me (like all of you), so a little piece of my identifies with being a musician, and another with car enthusiast etc, but I never really cling to one thing too aggressively.

 

[TheFool]

The eye cannot turn around and look at itself. It can only perceive that which it is not. In that same way, awareness cannot be perceived. It only perceives that which it is not.

So if you try to see your own awareness while being aware of your pursuit of seeing, you are focusing on something that is not you. The part or more like that space where this pursuit of trying to see yourself is being done is what you truly are. And yet not, since there is no solid ground for the awareness that just perceives everything in this ever present moment of nowness. There is just seeingness and the sense of beingness together, creating space for all mental constructions to manifest themselves.

The error arises as we mistakenly believe to be those mental constructions when in reality “we” are the space of awareness where everything is seen, not that what we are seeing.

This feels right to me. I can be who I am without being able to think, but thinking without that suchness is pure automaton. It's the same with feelings as with thoughts - these are not me but things that i manifest and experience. Pushing things a bit further though, I find that the whole issue evaporates into a paradox when I realise that my ability to be aware of myself is yet another of these faculties that are not-me: it's just another part of the virtual reality conjured by my psyche which I hope, but cannot be absolutely sure, is tightly linked to some genuine external reality. For me, it's an act of faith, something that has to be treated as an axiom, to accept that there is an external reality that my total range of awareness is mirroring. That includes my self awareness.


In part, in my early pondering, I was looking more at the semantics of 'identity' as much as it's philosophical depths. It's like the word 'love' which is overused and can mean such different things in different contexts that we really need different words to express them clearly. For example, we've just passed on an old car to one of my sons and as far as the UK authorities are concerned, my identity consists of my driving licence number, linked to ancillary attributes such as my name and address. All they are interested in is distinguishing me physically and uniquely from any other UK driver in a way that they can access easily and link to any car I'm driving (uniquely identified by it's registration and engine chassis numbers) and that's what they mean by identity. There are a myriad similar examples.

 

[wolly.green]

Yeah! How's he doing? I didn't know he had a brother

I'm disappointed he's dropping my name.

 

[wolly.green]

Honestly, I don't know what goes through that mans head sometimes. He once called me a slut thief, then ran away giggling as if he had just told the worlds funniest joke.

Anyway, I won't even attempt to define identity, I think that's just a hopeless waste of time. What I will do, however, is explain what I think a crisis is, and why it occurs. Essentially, identity crises happen for two reasons.

1. When a situation causes you to question who you think you are.
2. When a situation actually changes who you are.

Suppose your dog dies. She's been your faithful comrade and loyal companion for just over a decade. You love her dearly, and mourn her sudden departure. This is the kind of identity crisis that changes you. Before she dies, you are one person. After she dies, you are another. The death of your friend literally changes who you are. Ill explain why shortly.

Suppose you've been in a loving, committed marriage for 15 years. Like all relationships, it has it's ups and downs, but nothing particularly earth-shattering. You're cruising through life, all comfortable and content, when suddenly an old friend admits that he had an affair with your wife 2 years after the wedding. In a fit of rage, you punch him the face, ring your wife and demand an explanation. You're flustered, confused, and have an overwhelming desire to make this make sense. It doesn't matter how much your wife is overwhelmed with guilt, you need an explanation, NOW. This is an example of the second type. Let me explain.

We all know the passing of a loved one is a painful experience. But ask yourself, why is it painful? What is it about the loss of life that has us all in the grips of sorrow and despair? Or to put it more unsympathetically: what is the purpose of sadness? Jordan Peterson has an excellent video on this exact question. In it, he asks us to consider what it is that our bodies are doing when you feel sad. Well, our heart slows, our breathing shallows, we lose the motivation to do anything. For some of us, our desire to communicate, to connect with others temporarily diminishes. We feel a deep urge to be alone with our thoughts and to block out all external distractions. But why exactly? The reason, Peterson thinks, is because it allows us to process what it means for our life going forward.

We all have an internal framework that helps us to process the world we live in. Among many other things, it helps us to understand: the people that live in it, the values and cultures that govern it, and the forces of nature that limit it. More urgently though, it helps us to manifest ourselves, to build a life for ourselves and "create habitable order out of chaos". There are a lot of dangers in the world, and keeping your mental framework 'up to date' is absolutely essential. To keep chaos from clawing away at our little pockets of life, we need to learn. To continually build on the knowledge we already have and to correct as many errors as we can find. This is where sadness enters the scene. If survival really does depend on our "internal frameworks", on their consistency with reality, then it makes sense that we would feel sadness when something changes. The world has changed, and so must our frameworks.

The thing with humans is that we evolved to be social. To build intricate social connections and to feel safe and validated when successful. Unfortunately for our cavemen ancestors, this means that the sudden death of a loved one poses a significant threat to survival. The threat was so significant, in fact, that they evolved sadness to compel them into contemplation. To understand what it means for their lives going forwards. This is essentially what an identity crisis is and why it occurs. Something in the world changes, so we go to work trying to figure out what it means for our lives going forward. The closer to home, the more sadness we feel. If my wife cheated on me 13 years ago, what does that mean for our relationship? Is she the person I thought she was, or will she do it again? Will I need to change my life plans or am I overreacting?

I hope you're seeing it. I'm not good at explaining, so please keep asking questions if you want...

Someones been reading Jordan Peterson.

 

[Ren]

I'm disappointed he's dropping my name.

Thanks to your brother, we now know for certain that you're a weirdo

 

[Hba5h65]

In meditation the attention shifts to pure awareness / beingness / the sense of I Am. Occasionally it seems there is a permanent change in attention and those people are aware of themselves as awareness all the time. I understand identification with awareness to be freedom.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

The more I consider it, the more that I realise just how profound Geist actually is.