are we who we think we are?

[maria89]

do we define ourselves by what is outside us? or is only what is inside the important defining frequency..?
personally, i would think that both are inherently responsible. since the interaction of the two create a third influence: everything in between.

but do we know who we are just because we have figured out what defines us? and do we understand the definition?

[krieger]

the self is a totality that is too extensive to be held as a thought in the mind. it can not be reduced to a mere articulation or set thereof.

this is why any attempt at doing so fails and we only "know ourselves" to the extent we are mindful of that inherently ungraspable totality.

[Aylen]

Hello



"Five to one baby one in five
No one here gets out alive"

[Pa3s]

The outside mirrors the inside and vice versa.

I highly doubt we will ever be able to completely define ourselves.

[Words]

do we define ourselves by what is outside us? or is only what is inside the important defining frequency..?
personally, i would think that both are inherently responsible. since the interaction of the two create a third influence: everything in between.

but do we know who we are just because we have figured out what defines us? and do we understand the definition?

Don't know.

I go for outside for me unless it suits me I'll just say inside

[Cerelict]

OP, you are wasting your time.

[maria89]

No, our identity is given to us by other people. You have control over who you allow to give your identity, but it is affirmed in the minds of others.

your reasoning: that others (outside) gives you your identity. yourself has control over which identity is accepted and assimilated. (correct me if im wrong of course)
this implies however that you have no control. that which is projected onto you, (out of however many choices), choosing one, or a combination is then reflected back so to speak. to then be either accepted by the others as YOU, or merely a mask.
surrounded by little imagination and few options (perhaps), are we then truly satisfied by settling into our approved skin. is there maybe something inside us that knows we should have infinite choices?

but true. we are only "seen" by the others. and in turn "see" them. in order to understand what we are looking at we compare it to something we are familiar with which makes what we are seeing acceptable.

what is it that we might be looking at if we see something we dont understand in that way? or do we even see those things at all?

[lemontrees]

NEVER

also what is happening to this forum. i left for two weeks and I don't recognize anybody here

#gettingold

#theworldisslippingawayfromme

[Galen]

re: this thread

[Skepsis]

I've read that babies are born unable to differentiate self from non-self, and that the environment, to them, is an extension of their body and/or mind. It is only through further brain development and experience that they become a child able to distinguish between the two. The Self is a perception we develop based on sensory experiences, which lets us know where our bodies end and the world begins.

[ashlesha]

No, our identity is given to us by other people. You have control over who you allow to give your identity, but it is affirmed in the minds of others. A lonely person sitting in a chair at home can visualize themselves as an outgoing, well-respected salesperson, for example, but until they go out and interact with many people, that identity is not manifested. A real identity includes your reputation and what others think, which is why the manner in which you choose to present yourself to the world will have everlasting ripple effects on the person you become.

what other people think of us can very useful information, but it has at least as much to do with them as it does to do with you and it shouldnt be viewed as objective data or anything. the degree to which you decide to incorporate it into your identity or self-image is entirely up to you.

[Reficulris]

what other people think of us can very useful information, but it has at least as much to do with them as it does to do with you and it shouldnt be viewed as objective data or anything. the degree to which you decide to incorporate it into your identity or self-image is entirely up to you.

I think essentially you and @William agree, he just points out that in order for your self image to be more than just daydreaming you need interaction with the world to actualise it. Like his example; I could lay in bed daydreaming of being a masterful lover, and in a sense that could be my reality, or identity, until I die, but unless I go out to other people's beds and make love to them and achieve mastery and the ensuing social recognition it won't be more than just day dreaming.

ofc this leads to a discussion of epistemology, is actualised identity better than imagined identity? There is no hard reason to think so, but to be honest people who actualise their identity always seem more real to me than those who don't. But that's personal taste maybe.

edit: Sartre had the idea that identity only takes hold when you die, because up to then there is nothing that you fall together with, that is, you're in change, are you a salesmen? What if you get fired? Are you sle? What if you get brain damage and start performing the world as ese? Are you a good person? What if you get in a war and have to do terrible things or make a terrible mistake?
after you're dead you've been fully actualised, you are what you were.
i think, together with his "hell are the others" statement sums up my ideas about identity nicely.

[Aylen]

I've read that babies are born unable to differentiate self from non-self, and that the environment, to them, is an extension of their body and/or mind. It is only through further brain development and experience that they become a child able to distinguish between the two. The Self is a perception we develop based on sensory experiences, which lets us know where our bodies end and the world begins.

I woke up one morning with strings attached. It is one of the strangest experiences I ever had and was not drug induced. Like the whole day I felt connected to absolutely everything I touched. The energy between the objects and me was stringy. Hmm not sure how to explain but it almost felt like being attached by some kind of spider webs because the energy was that light but it was also stretchy. When I pulled away the feeling of the strings stretched with me and did not break. It was almost like pulling on a rubberband but lighter like the feel of a silky web. It was amazing and disconcerting. It only lasted for like a day though. So I googled it and ended up buying a book called "The Elegant Universe". to see if I could get some insight.

Also known as superstring theory, the startling idea proposes that the fundamental ingredients of nature are inconceivably tiny strings of energy, whose different modes of vibration underlie everything that happens in the universe. The theory successfully unites the laws of the large—general relativity—and the laws of the small—quantum mechanics—breaking a conceptual logjam that has frustrated the world's smartest scientists for nearly a century.

Seems totally plausible to me.

[ashlesha]

I think essentially you and @William agree, he just points out that in order for your self image to be more than just daydreaming you need interaction with the world to actualise it. Like his example; I could lay in bed daydreaming of being a masterful lover, and in a sense that could be my reality, or identity, until I die, but unless I go out to other people's beds and make love to them and achieve mastery and the ensuing social recognition it won't be more than just day dreaming.

ofc this leads to a discussion of epistemology, is actualised identity better than imagined identity? There is no hard reason to think so, but to be honest people who actualise their identity always seem more real to me than those who don't. But that's personal taste maybe.

edit: Sartre had the idea that identity only takes hold when you die, because up to then there is nothing that you fall together with, that is, you're in change, are you a salesmen? What if you get fired? Are you sle? What if you get brain damage and start performing the world as ese? Are you a good person? What if you get in a war and have to do terrible things or make a terrible mistake?
after you're dead you've been fully actualised, you are what you were.
i think, together with his "hell are the others" statement sums up my ideas about identity nicely.

sure. but theres a difference between "actualized identity" and "what other people think about you."
do you know what an excellent lover i am?? hmmhmhmhm

[Reficulris]

sure. but theres a difference between "actualized identity" and "what other people think about you."

hmhm, well, in a way... I liked the comments above that stated that the self is unknowable and multifaceted.

Let's continue with my example, so i've immagined i'm a masterfull lover, i've read the books, done the tantric seminars and all that shite. Now i go into the world to get actualized: I climb in womens bedrooms at night and make sweet tantric love to their sleeping and unknowing bodies! Whoohoo, i'm now such a masterfull lover!!!...wait, no i'm a rapist. So that doesn't work either, in this case i'll need others active and willing participation in my identity (the same argument can be made about a salesman who steals and leaves his products for example) to actualize it. Now, i seduce women in bars, take them home and make sweet love to their not sleeping bodies. They moan and quiver, so i'm a masterfull lover!!! Wait... no, they might actually be faking it. Shit! Science to the resque. I admit them to extensive questionaires after the sex and wire their body up to expensive machinery that measures their bodily aroussal, now I have both external and subjective knowledge of my sexual prowwess and will surely be a masterfull lover!! well...........

In the case above my (purely fictional btw) identity would be nerd turned rapist turned seducer turned scientist

Than a counter example:

Maybe, i have this psychological anomaly that induces me to secretly and unknowingly kick puppies in dark alleys when there's no-one around. I black out, kick the puppy, walk away and forget all about it! This in no sense would impact my "external" identity (reputation) but i think it'd be a stretch to say i'm not a bad person (identity) or a "puppy-kicker" (identity). Even though I myself don't know (so it's not immaginary identity) and even though others don't know (external identity) there is still something about my identity, or part in the world-story that is about puppy-kicking!

((if you think puppies are a source of external identity substitute the example above with "pissing in soup" or "leaving money for poor people" or whatever.))

To summerize, imho to say that all identity comes from others is a limited point of view. But I think that "what people think about you" IS part of your identity. So is what you think about yourself, and so are the actions you don't remember and which are not noticed.


Now subjectively speaking people will differ in what types of identity they'll favour, external or internal and that might change during time too. Hence, You'll know who i am when i'm dead

do you know what an excellent lover i am?? hmmhmhmhm

Yes you do have that reputation here

[Persephone]

I am what I choose to be at a given moment.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

what was first, the egg or the chicken? we'll never know