I didn't see that comment as taking the piss

:up:

Yes, i understand what you are saying, but I think you are conflating what one is and what one identifies oneself to be - being with idea of being, territory with map. one's idea of oneself can be realistic or unrealistic, but never real. — unenlightened

Well, if we assume this distinction, between "what one is and what one identifies oneself to be", we can see that there might be quite a difference. And the issue is that what one identifies oneself to be is often an incorrect representation of what one is. So if what one identifies oneself to be, is meant to be a true representation of what one is, then there can be no difference between the two, and one's true identity is found in what one is. If we allow that what one identifies oneself to be is one's identity, and this is meant to be a representation of what one is, then we allow for falsity within one's identity. And if we open that door, then one can falsely represent oneself, intentionally, and we'd have to say that this intentionally false identity is the person's identity, because it is how one identifies oneself.

It appears to me, that what you are requesting is that there be an act required, the act of identifying, as prerequisite to having an identity. I think that simply being is all that is required to have an identity, but you think that an act which identifies is required in order for a person to have an identity. You seem to think that a person's identity is created by this act of identifying.

We can make some sort of compromise, or compatibility between these two senses of "identity", by assuming that this act which creates a person's identity is the act which creates the person. Then the person's identity would be something like the first, second, or third (whatever) son, or daughter of such and such couple. But you can see how this would be incomplete. For completion we'd have to identify the parents, and the parents of the parents, etc.. This form of identity is important in some religions, and you can find this type of narrative in the Old Testament, so and so is son of so and so who is son of so and so, etc.. It's difficult if not impossible to trace this narrative to the end/beginning to complete the identity, so they posit something like Adam and Eve with the initial act, or even a "primordial soup" with the initial act being a bolt of lightening or something like that.

The problem with that sort of identity is that it gives us all the very same beginning, but "identity" is understood as what each of us has that is different from each other. So in spite of each of us having one's own distinct act which brings one into existence, giving oneself one's own identity in that way, when we try to complete that identity, it comes around to being a matter of something which makes us all the same.

What we are left with is two incompatible principles which are both equally essential to identity. These are the being of the person, what one is, and this is a principle of sameness for us all, and also the particular acts which makes each of us different, and this is the principle of difference.

The problem I have with your perspective, is where does the required act of identifying fit into this? Why do you think that having an "identity" which is what makes each of us different, yet also the same in some way, requires a special act called "identifying"? When we move to identify, don't we assume that the person being identified already has an identity, or else the act of identifying would prove fruitless? When we "identify" aren't we trying to determine something which is already there, rather than create something which could be completely imaginary and fictitious?

What we are left with is two incompatible principles which are both equally essential to identity. These are the being of the person, what one is, and this is a principle of sameness for us all, and also the particular acts which makes each of us different, and this is the principle of difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is much more interesting to me, because it is a conflict that people, especially teenagers go through, and some have more trouble than others. If my brother likes blue, I have to like red, just to differentiate myself. If my parents like jazz, I have to like punk, but at the same time as I seek uniqueness, I seek fellowship, and we are family, or class or nation, or whatever.

Physically, there is no problem, because one has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, and a unique history, but also we are all one species. But it is in our constructed relationship with ourself and with others that difficulties arise - in the idea I have of me, and the idea I have of you, and the idea I have of the idea you have of me, and the idea I have of the idea you have of yourself, and vice versa, and how we both perform and communicate and negotiate these ideas. And notice that all these ideas include value judgements - that unenlightened - too clever for his boots, but at least he's not as confused as [censored].

The problem I have with your perspective, is where does the required act of identifying fit into this? Why do you think that having an "identity" which is what makes each of us different, yet also the same in some way, requires a special act called "identifying"? When we move to identify, don't we assume that the person being identified already has an identity, or else the act of identifying would prove fruitless? When we "identify" aren't we trying to determine something which is already there, rather than create something which could be completely imaginary and fictitious? — Metaphysician Undercover

The act is not special to us, it's what we are always doing in thought, such that it creates a centre of thought as the self that thinks. Everyone thinks they are somebody special, and also that they are one of the people.

One names one's child to give it an identity and the name is written in a special register, and a certificate awarded, thus psychology becomes bureaucracy. You have to know your name, sign your name, identify with your name, respond to your name being called. Without your name you would be no less a person, except that socially you would be nothing, a non-person, of no (bank) account, stateless, etc etc. When someone steals your identity, they do not steal you, but socially they act as you, and take over your social life.

So it is clear that what I think I am is my personal identity, and what society thinks I am is my social identity, and these do not always align, and the physical being that I am is heavily influenced from without and within by these ideas that I have and other people have.

The importance of family name tends to be overlooked by those for whom it is unproblematic, but ancestry tracing is big business, and typically, foundlings have a strong feeling of something missing in not having that family history and connection to known ancestors. Region, tribe, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, all serve to locate a person in a social network, and to a great extent it is the network not the individual that forms the identity. But these things are all social constructs - words made flesh.

But property is also made flesh by identification - scratch my car and you have wounded my body. Thus it becomes clear that identity is everything - me in my world.

Now, bracket off all the above, and call it a story, (or a meta story) of how we humans come to be what we are and do what we do. And now you want to argue that it must be otherwise because this and this of evidence and logic. So that then is your meta-story, where identity is fixed and real - or perhaps not quite that - you tell your story. And so we can disagree about our stories and our meta-stories and our identities. But in the main, things are a matter of culture, and not physics.

This is much more interesting to me, because it is a conflict that people, especially teenagers go through, and some have more trouble than others. If my brother likes blue, I have to like red, just to differentiate myself. If my parents like jazz, I have to like punk, but at the same time as I seek uniqueness, I seek fellowship, and we are family, or class or nation, or whatever. — unenlightened

I would say that while we seek uniqueness we rely on sameness, as sameness is what we tend to take for granted. And maybe its because of the overwhelming commonness of this commonality which is so basic and taken for granted, that we seek uniqueness. If that makes any sense. Though one's DNA is said to be unique, it is over than 99 per cent the same.

Physically, there is no problem, because one has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, and a unique history, but also we are all one species. But it is in our constructed relationship with ourself and with others that difficulties arise - in the idea I have of me, and the idea I have of you, and the idea I have of the idea you have of me, and the idea I have of the idea you have of yourself, and vice versa, and how we both perform and communicate and negotiate these ideas. And notice that all these ideas include value judgements - that unenlightened - too clever for his boots, but at least he's not as confused as [censored]. — unenlightened

This is where I see the basic problem with associating identity with an act of identifying. I will identify you in a way which is other than the way that you identify yourself. By what principle do you say that self-identifying is what gives you identity rather than someone else identifying you? It wouldn't be right to say that they're both your proper identity, because then you'd have as many identities as there are people who know you. And it might seem correct that you know yourself better than anyone else knows you, but doesn't "identity" refer fundamentally to how others know you?

So, you propose a distinction, personal identity versus social identity. And, since your subject is "self", it is personal identity you wish to deal with. Here's the difference I think, social identity is your name, and what that name carries with it, while personal identity is your body. Or is it? You say that it is how you identify yourself, so this is attributed to your mind, and not necessarily related to your body. In reality, your body is attached to your name, so it is an aspect of your social identity.

I might therefore ask you, how do you think your body is related to your personal identity, your self? Surely you don't see yourself as a body, in the same way that others see your body, but how do you relate to your body? Do you feel like you have a body? Are you inside your body? Do you have control over your body? Is your body something which is there for you to use as a tool? Is it the source of pain? Is it the source of pleasure? What is pleasure and pain? Why do you even have a body? Do you need it? The questions are endless, from the perspective of personal identity, even though from the perspective of social identity, the body is just taken for granted.

The act is not special to us, it's what we are always doing in thought, such that it creates a centre of thought as the self that thinks. Everyone thinks they are somebody special, and also that they are one of the people. — unenlightened

So, when a self thinks "I am special", how is this thought grounded, or what is it based in? From the social identity perspective, you appear as a unique body, but really it's almost the same as everyone else. If we are almost the same, over 99 per cent of DNA being the same, then why does everyone think that they are different?

But property is also made flesh by identification - scratch my car and you have wounded my body. Thus it becomes clear that identity is everything - me in my world. — unenlightened

Why then, is flesh and body important to personal identity? I can see how it is important to social identity, but I do not see how it fits into personal identity. Is one's what rationalizes "I am special", by being a reflection of how others see us, as a unique body? We see the names of others as referring to unique bodies therefore we think of ourselves as unique bodies. Is the end of your story to give up on the importance of your body, quit thinking "I am special", and quit identifying with how others identify you for your own personal identification, as a unique body?

I will identify you in a way which is other than the way that you identify yourself. By what principle do you say that self-identifying is what gives you identity rather than someone else identifying you? It wouldn't be right to say that they're both your proper identity, because then you'd have as many identities as there are people who know you. And it might seem correct that you know yourself better than anyone else knows you, but doesn't "identity" refer fundamentally to how others know you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well you have a problem because you are looking for a 'true' or a 'proper' identity. I don't have that problem, because for me, identities are marks on a map, or labels, not facts about the world.Identity is all talk. Now in a general way, we believe labels and maps and talk. Ready meals have ingredients lists, but occasionally one finds a 'foreign body' in the pie. The label does not know. Sometimes the label knows that it does not know - 'may contain nuts'. Sometimes the label has official permission to be economical with the truth - peanut butter may contain a percentage of ground insects but doesn't tell you. Sometimes completely the wrong label gets put on by design or accident. But whatever it says, don't eat the label, and have a look and a sniff at the contents too.

It simply is the case that people label each other all the time; even here on TPF, some people think I'm a very stable genius, whereas I think I'm absolutely innocent. Even the Deep Mods cannot agree, which is why I'm still here. Or is this all fake news? Will the real Slim unenlightened please stand up?

As my previous thread seemed to arrive at, the story (label, map) of the powerful is the one that tends to be imposed on everyone as dogma. If Hitler says you are Jewish scum, it doesn't matter what you or your granny think, or what the truth of matter is, off to the extermination camp you go.

Well you have a problem because you are looking for a 'true' or a 'proper' identity. I don't have that problem, because for me, identities are marks on a map, or labels, not facts about the world.Identity is all talk. — unenlightened

We've just circled around now, back to where we were. What I said at the beginning is that I think identity is more than just the narrative. That is because I think that if we take away the narrative there is still a self remaining, the self which looks toward the future. The narrative is associated with the self which looks toward the past. And if there is still a self, when the narrative is removed, i.e. the self which looks only toward the future, that self must have some sort of identity itself.

Now in a general way, we believe labels and maps and talk. Ready meals have ingredients lists, but occasionally one finds a 'foreign body' in the pie. The label does not know. Sometimes the label knows that it does not know - 'may contain nuts'. Sometimes the label has official permission to be economical with the truth - peanut butter may contain a percentage of ground insects but doesn't tell you. Sometimes completely the wrong label gets put on by design or accident. But whatever it says, don't eat the label, and have a look and a sniff at the contents too. — unenlightened

When I look to the future, I see that it is filled with 'things' which cannot be labeled, because they are unknown. We can label them in a general sense, as undetermined, unknown, possibilities, etc., but we cannot label them in particular because the particulars are unknown completely. And we can identify specific possibilities, and even bring them into the narrative, assigning "probability" to them, through some form of statistical analysis, or even apply a stronger form of logic supported by inductive premises and principles of continuity, to make very accurate predictions concerning these possibilities. Nevertheless, these accurate predictions apply only to a very small part of the overall "future", and therefore do very little to calm my anxiety concerning the vast undetermined, unknown possibilities of the future.

I've come to the realization that the narrative cannot tell me why I have such an uneasy attitude toward the future because my anxiety is associated with a part of reality which escapes the narrative, the future. And now I see that the narrative is actually very limited in its scope and capability for predicting the future, compared to the realm of real possibility for the future. This makes me even more uneasy. Furthermore, you describe my identity and consequently my "self" as being limited to that narrative, and this seems to be the norm in our society. Therefore, I must apprehend a vast part of my own personal self as escaping my identity, that part of me which is anxious about the future. This adds a whole new level of uneasiness to my preexisting anxiety concerning the unknowns of the future, by telling me that this part of me, my anxiety toward the future, cannot be comprehended as a part of my identity.

It simply is the case that people label each other all the time; even here on TPF, some people think I'm a very stable genius, whereas I think I'm absolutely innocent. Even the Deep Mods cannot agree, which is why I'm still here. Or is this all fake news? Will the real Slim unenlightened please stand up?

As my previous thread seemed to arrive at, the story (label, map) of the powerful is the one that tends to be imposed on everyone as dogma. If Hitler says you are Jewish scum, it doesn't matter what you or your granny think, or what the truth of matter is, off to the extermination camp you go. — unenlightened

I'm very tempted to tell you to fuck off and die. Are you trying to increase may anxiety, you fucking bastard? Are you saying that there are some elites who actually exercise control over my future, through the use of dogma? Are you saying that though my future is unknown to me, because my narrative cannot give it to me, these elites have a secret narrative which actually lets them control my future? And are you insinuating that these elites have a tendency to act like pricks?

Relax, I am. As you can see, I do not buy that bullshit. I do not limit my self and my identity to "the narrative". The real me escapes the narrative.

So I have been sent here to destroy you
And there's a million of us just like me
Who cuss like me; who just don't give a fuck like me
Who dress like me; walk, talk and act like me
It just might be the next best thing but not quite me! — Eminem

The real me escapes the narrative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it does! All this is only a story! there's nothing real about it. But when you tell me about the real me and how it escapes - that's just a story too. So have you escaped the narrative, or are you still in a different narrative?

Please do not read this thread, it will only upset you. — unenlightened

Please do not read this comment. You won't like it.
:grin:

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone? :gasp:

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone? :gasp: — Alkis Piskas

Because that would deprive you of the freedom to ignore my suggestion, just as Adam and Eve ignored god's command. Explaining the joke rather spoils it, but human psychology is what it is. I don't mind your comment at all, we're all human, it turns out, even God. :wink:

Why then don't you remove all that you have written and just leave the reference alone?
— Alkis Piskas
Because that would deprive you of the freedom to ignore my suggestion, just as Adam and Eve ignored god's command. — unenlightened

So, I did well to obey your "command" and not read your description of the topic. Thus I will not be cast out of Eden! :grin:

(BTW, God is not human. It is created by humans.)

Of course it does! All this is only a story! there's nothing real about it. But when you tell me about the real me and how it escapes - that's just a story too. So have you escaped the narrative, or are you still in a different narrative? — unenlightened

So we just went around in a circle. After making that big circle, do you see now why the narrative of the self cannot comprise the identity of the self? If the self knows that there is nothing real about the narrative, it's just a story, then it must also know that it cannot identify itself with that narrative which is just a story.

Sure, what I say is just a story as well, but it is a story with a lesson to be learned. If you see the self as distinct from the narrative, as you clearly do, then you must also see that you cannot use the narrative to identify yourself, because that which is in the narrative is not you and therefore cannot provide you with your identity. Nor can you find your identity in the narrative in any way, because that is not you in the narrative, it's just a story, so it cannot be your identity.

So we just went around in a circle. After making that big circle, do you see now why the narrative of the self cannot comprise the identity of the self? If the self knows that there is nothing real about the narrative, it's just a story, then it must also know that it cannot identify itself with that narrative which is just a story.

Sure, what I say is just a story as well, but it is a story with a lesson to be learned. If you see the self as distinct from the narrative, as you clearly do, then you must also see that you cannot use the narrative to identify yourself, because that which is in the narrative is not you and therefore cannot provide you with your identity. Nor can you find your identity in the narrative in any way, because that is not you in the narrative, it's just a story, so it cannot be your identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. And shall we go round the circle again, or shall we stop here? The next step is that you tell me what real identity is... again.

I'll just demonstrate this time. I'll stop the narrative, and the real self with its real identity will live on. The only problem is that since you only know my identity through the narrative, you'll never know. So the demonstration is bound to be useless.

I sometimes imagine that each of my fingers has their own consciousness and personality. What do the fingers think of themselves, and each other? To them, I’d imagine they think they’re very different and completely separate. I can see their obvious differences as they can.

But to me they are all just… fingers. Including Mr and Mrs Thumb who look and feel very different than the others. The important fact that the wonderful and precious digits usually overlook (except when they’ve had some wine or pot or are simply feeling mystical and childlike) is that they are deeply connected. So connected in fact, that they couldn’t function or even exist really without the hand. They sometimes talk amongst themselves about whether a hand really exists, or is just a theory.

What would they think if they knew the same blood flowed through all of them? And muscles, bones, and nerves. That they, all the fingers on one hand, are so radically connected as to almost be a single being. Likewise they are even connected to those faraway fingers on the opposite hand.

Little left pinky finger (feeling very deep and philosophical) once suggested this very idea. That all of them were deeply connected… even to those very odd and stinky ones called “toes”. This idea was met with much skepticism from the other fingers, who assumed Pinky must be either misguided or joking. The others gave the entire notion a “thumbs down”, and went back to their chores.

I'll just demonstrate this time. I'll stop the narrative, and the real self with its real identity will live on. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would have been impressed if you had stopped, and that would have been a demonstration, but unfortunately you didn't. What I have presented here is the logic of Zen.

The real me escapes the narrative.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it does! All this is only a story! there's nothing real about it. But when you tell me about the real me and how it escapes - that's just a story too. So have you escaped the narrative, or are you still in a different narrative? — unenlightened

What you needed to do was put your slippers on your head and walk out, or post a flower emoji, anything that would communicate without continuing the narrative, but you continued the narrative.

I don't see how the timing of when I walk out makes any difference at all. The end comes soon... but not yet.

@unenlightened do you believe ghost stories?

Huh? What's that got to do with the price of fish?

You know this story, right?

All of the organs are deciding who should be in charge:

"I should be in charge," said the brain , "I run all the body's systems, without me nothing would happen."

"I should be in charge," said the heart , "I circulate oxygen and nutrients all over."

"No! I should be in charge," said the stomach, "I process the food that gives us energy."

"I should be in charge," said the legs, "without me the body couldn't go anywhere."

"I should be in charge," said the eyes, "I allow the body to see where it goes." "I should be in charge," said the anus, "I am responsible for waste removal."

All of the other body parts laughed at the anus and insulted him. So he shut down. Within a few days, the brain had a terrible headache, the stomach was bloated, the legs got wobbly, the eyes got watery, and the heart pumped toxic blood. They all decided that the anus should be the boss.

What is the moral of the story? Even though everybody else does all of the work the asshole is usually in charge./quote]

what I understood from your original post is that the self is a story that finishes upon death. I've seen a spirit before, so I think my experience contradicts what is being posited here.

I've seen a spirit before, so I think my experience contradicts what is being posited here. — Changeling

Right, I see. I think I could accommodate the story continuing after death, it is a commonplace of some Eastern traditions that the soul evolves over many lives, for example. But I wouldn't say that the story finishes on death, but rather stops - mid-sentence as it were in most cases. If there is a chance after death to continue to a proper completion -"and they all lived happily ever after", that would be wonderful, but I have no experience or expertise in any other realm but this world so far as i can remember, so my story has to stop at death for now. If I discover that death is not the end, I'll endeavour to appear as a spirit and let you know.

I think if we could agree that there has to be a continuation of consciousness in some form for the narrative self to continue, and that consciousness can continue without the narrative when the tale is 'completed', and that this completion and continuation is very rare in this world, then that is all I would seek to defend as my belief here.

I think if we could agree that there has to be a continuation of consciousness in some form for the narrative self to continue, and that consciousness can continue without the narrative when the tale is 'completed', and that this completion and continuation is very rare in this world, then that is all I would seek to defend as my belief here. — unenlightened

There's a lot here I agree with. Narratives are an important part of how we think of ourselves and the world around us. But aren't there complications? For example, biographies are actually constructed by a biographer who selects and arranges; often the unity of their narrative is broken up by themes and/or episodes. Perhaps a third person's narrative about me is not what you have in mind. But autobiographies are not reallly any different. In any case, I'm not sure that anything much unifies my actual life apart from the continuity of my consciousness (I'm being generous there, since sleep and unconsciousness are interruptions in some way.)

Perhaps you mean the narrative I construct as I go along, even though I may forget or abandon those drafts?

Haha, very good. :blush: The moral of that story: don’t be so damn tight-assed and tense while trying to run everything. Life will become enjoyable again.

Perhaps a third person's narrative about me is not what you have in mind. — Ludwig V

It isn't. WhatI have in mind is this sort of thing:

I'm not sure that anything much unifies my actual life apart from the continuity of my consciousness (I'm being generous there, since sleep and unconsciousness are interruptions in some way.) — Ludwig V

Paradoxically, your narrative gives continuity even as it suggests discontinuity, of the approximate form - I am awake, then I sleep and then I am awake and then ... and that is my actual life.

Sorry to be personal, but in this topic personal is clarity, I hope and think.

Paradoxically, your narrative gives continuity even as it suggests discontinuity, of the approximate form - I am awake, then I sleep and then I am awake and then ... and that is my actual life. — unenlightened

That clarifies a good deal. Sleep and unconsciousness are not really interruptions, but part of a narrative - a cycle in the case of sleep, and an incident in the case of unconsciousness. Fair enough.

Still, it seems to me that when you speak of a narrative, you don't mean a log of my experiences, but something more structured with successes and failures and diversions and so on. Is there a reason why we can't find more than a single narrative in our lives?

Still, it seems to me that when you speak of a narrative, you don't mean a log of my experiences, but something more structured with successes and failures and diversions and so on. Is there a reason why we can't find more than a single narrative in our lives? — Ludwig V

If there is more than one narrative, one has intrusive thoughts and maybe starts hearing voices. "There's someone in my head, but it's not me."

It happens...

In a sense this whole thread, my contributions at any rate, are my ongoing narrative self exposed for the world's entertainment. The train of thought runs on and eventually runs into the sand, and another train of thought sets off and then another train reflects on these trains and integrates them into a new train. Any train can reconnected to any other train with the word 'and'. Think child typical narratives — I got up and I had breakfast and mummy took me to school and teacher was boring and we had fish-fingers I hit Jimmy because he said I smelled and...

I wrote all that and then... self fades in and fades out, but is always the same, except on the Dark side of the Moon.

self fades in and fades out, but is always the same, except on the Dark side of the Moon. — unenlightened

Your account of a train of thought as we experience it is a good one. The saving grace is that a train does at least connect internally and can be connected externally. So it's different from the stream of consciousness. I like that.

Whether the self is always the same is a good question. Your account of the train of thought suggests not, doesn't it?

I'm not sure there's a good definition of the self, apart from whatever I recognize and/or assert (which may be inconsistent!).

Whether the self is always the same is a good question. Your account of the train of thought suggests not, doesn't it? — Ludwig V

I'm not certain; I am inconsistent and my account of myself changes.
But that is the account of myself, which is entirely self-consistent. At this point I am in a postmodern nightmare where the narrative is all there is and that is all the truth there is because that is the narrative and that's all there is. As if the map is all there is of the territory - which makes the self a fiction from start to finish, and yet a persistent one if not always consistent..

If your map has no territory it is not a map. Or if it is a map, it is a fictional map and consequently not your narrative.

I'm tempted to suggest a Zen cure. Go for a walk, have a cup to tea and a good night's sleep. Or perhaps Hume's cure for scepticism would suit you better. According to him few days' living a normal life would sort you out, though he clearly preferred a game of billiards.

Modern philosophers still sometimes fall into the error of thinking that all there is, is language. They forget that language consistently, insistently, point "beyond" itself. There is no beyond, it is just that language exists in a world, which continually impinges on it. Your narrative is about something outside the narrative - you - and it is continually broken into and messed about by reality. That's what sits behind my nit picking. How about you are what disrupts your narrative?

I do take you seriously, but straightforward argument is not going to get you back to normality, is it?

Yes, I have been there. There is a life afterwards, when you get the right balance.