The personality is fluid. It contains all sorts of potentialities. Consciousness is potentiality. Consciousness consists of it's relation to its potentialities. A consciousness and furthermore a personality is not defined by the expressed. The authenticity of an individual is between the expressing and the expressed. A person expressing themselves to be a certain way is in a sense based upon an appeal to the willing of an inapprehendable object; however, it is this relationality in terms of the object that defines the mode of consciousness associated — Blue Lux

Does it mean that you deny the existence of the permanent "subject" of consciousness?
May I reformulate your point in the following way: consciousness is a resulting vector of an assemblage of different, even non-human factors?

Am I thus alone to my own experiences after all? — Blue Lux

According to Bakhtin, even our intimate feelings and experiences are determined by outer-social
organization: "The experiential, expressible element and its outward objectification are created, as we know, out of one and the same material. After all, there is no such thing as experience outside of embodiment in signs. Consequently, the very notion of a fundamental, qualitative difference between the inner and the outer element is invalid ... Furthermore, the location of the organizing and formative center is not within (i.e., not in the material of inner signs) but outside, It is not experience that organizes expression, but the other way around - expression organizing experience. The expression is what first gives experience its form and specificity of direction."

The complexity is a result of our ignorance on this topic. Occam's Razor dictates that the best explanations are the the simplest. — Harry Hindu

I admit your point about our ignorance. Yet, it is impossible to ignore the problems discussed in this thread. I think it would be useful to apply analytical tools and concepts developed by Foucault, even though they look too complicated.

We encounter an explosive proliferation of gender identifications:
• Agender
• Androgyne
• Androgynous
• Bigender
• Cis
• Cisgender
• Cis Female
• Cis Male
• Cis Man
• Cis Woman
• Cisgender Female
• Cisgender Male
• Cisgender Man
• Cisgender Woman
• Female to Male
• FTM
• Gender Fluid
• Gender Nonconforming
• Gender Questioning
• Gender Variant
• Genderqueer
• Intersex
• Male to Female
• MTF
• Neither
• Neutrois
• Non-binary
• Other
• Pangender
• Trans
• Trans*
• Trans Female
• Trans* Female
• Trans Male
• Trans* Male
• Trans Man
• Trans* Man
• Trans Person
• Trans* Person
• Trans Woman
• Trans* Woman
• Transfeminine
• Transgender
• Transgender Female
• Transgender Male
• Transgender Man
• Transgender Person
• Transgender Woman
• Transmasculine
• Transsexual
• Transsexual Female
• Transsexual Male
• Transsexual Man
• Transsexual Person
• Transsexual Woman
• Two-Spirit

To understand this phenomenon it is possible to apply an approach developed by Foucault in "The history of sexuality": "It is the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of exercise of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to do so more and more, a determination on the part of agencies of power to have it spoken about, and to cause it through explicit articulation and endlessly accumulated detail. An imperative was established ... you will seek to transform your desire, your every desire into the discourse."

Derrida "Cogito and the History of Madness"

I agree with you. That is why I am not sure about authenticity. We inherited Cogito as fundamentally split! "The act of Cogito is no longer a question of objective, representative knowledge -
there is a value and a meaning of Cogito, as of existence, which escapes the alternative of a determined madness or a determined reason...I philosophize only in terror, but in the confessed terror
of going mad". Yet, anyway, we must produce positivistic sentences and meaningful utterances!:blush:

I brought this quote to calm down our discussion. :smile:

Authenticity is the expression of oneself how they are, — Blue Lux

Any kind of human expression assumes the split between the expressed and expressing.
Actually, there is a real void between them. I think that the authentic thought is in-between.

Be with another person who 'represents' these words. Be around them I mean. Engage in a real conversation about life and desire. Only in a respectful, meaningful exchange will you find the true meaning of what these words like transgenderedism mean, or homosexuality. That is the authenticity I am talking about. The paradigm of authenticity would be the paradigm that is not idle talk. Like, instead of saying that I am gay I say that I am absolutely, completely, unequivocally and unquestionably in love with and sexually attracted to someone who has the same gender and sex as myself. — Blue Lux

I hope you don’t mean that discussing transgenderism with a heterosexual man is an idle talk. I asked you about authenticity just because it is important for me to find the criteria for differentiation between fake and authentic. As Adorno pointed out:” the sacred quality of the authentic talk belongs to the cult of authenticity rather than to the Christian cult, even where - for temporary lack of any other available authority - its language resembles the Christian. Prior to any consideration of particular content, this language molds thought. As a consequence, that thought accommodates itself to the goal of subordination even where it aspires to resist that goal.”

In other words, this talk by 'them' about the abstraction of 'transgenderism' is fundamentally inauthentic, as it does not relate to any specification of personality or existence, but of an objective generalization of what it might be for someone who fits under that category.
There must be, to remain within a sphere or paradigm of authenticity, a separation between what is real, like my trans friend Ryan and me the homosexual, and this talk of trans people and homosexuals. — Blue Lux

Could you explain your understanding of "a sphere or paradigm of authenticity"? Do you mean that your feelings and thoughts have another (maybe better, or more real) ontological status?

I understand and respect your feelings! How can we differentiate between people's choices and commercializing the most intimate human feelings and bringing them on the market of available identifications?

Probably, for the first transgenders it was really an act of free choice.

Well, 'trans'gender means to go beyond gender. So. You can be whatever you want to be. You can describe yourself in any manner. That is your freedom. — Blue Lux

Here is the problem: to become a transgender by many people ( and, by transgenders themselves) is understood as a manifestation of their freedom, as a free choice of a new identity. Yet, isn't this process is guided and taken up by mass-media and by so many institutions and organizations? So, it is rather taking part in a mass movement than a free choice of an individual identity.

Has the issue of transgenderism become politicized?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/gender_confusion_a_tool_of_the_left.html

The problem here is the binary. Many transgender people say that they are non binary. However, the binary has implications. — Blue Lux

Is that possible to exist "in between"? I've met a transgender who said: "Today mourning I felt as if I was a man, and later as if I was a woman..." So, is that possible to avoid the binary in self-identification?

Actually, it is an explosive proliferation of gender-related identities. Can this process develop on its own? Are there some forces and institutions behind?

Most likely, the thesis “doing injustice is worse than suffering injustice” was constructed by Plato to back his own presentation of the event of Socrates’s death.
So, according to Plato, Socrates preferred “suffering injustice” and actually committed "a philosophical suicide”. Is suicide still a greatest ethical choice available for us?

This system of rules assumes a high level of consciousness, reflection upon one's performances, kind of self-development and readiness to change yourself. Yet, most people unconsciously adopt themselves to prevailing norms and social environments. As far as they reach
a convenient equilibrium, they do not change themselves anymore.

That is obviously not possible. You are either female or male. You can't be something in between or a third weird gender, especially as we humans are a mammalian species. There are only two genders. Its a fact that cannot change. — Terran Imperium

Why not? It is a cliche, stereotype. Gender is socially produced and constructed. A construction of new gendered orientation(s) has become a powerful vector of individualization and self-fulfillment. It would be interesting to explore what forces are actually involved in this process.

According to the Oxford Living Dictionaries:
"A state or condition in which a person's identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional ideas of male or female gender."
According to this definition, Trans-genderism is the matter of ideology.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary:
"The condition of someone feeling that they are not the same gender (= sex) as the one they had or were said to have at birth." — Terran Imperium

And, by this definition trans-genderism is the matter of somebody's personal self-identification. Both definitions open a way for changing gender. But what about "no gender"?

Scott Berman in his essay "Socrates and Callicles on Pleasure" wrote:"Socrates himself is a hedonist...
The difference between Callicles and Socrates on the pleasure and the good is that Callicles does not take into consideration the structures of the pleasure or the pains he avoids whereas Socrates thinks that you have to take into consideration these structures."

Hedonism is generally understood as a philosophy that sets the pursuit of pleasure (understood in the sense of pleasures that are sensorily gratifying, ecstatic, etc.) as the primary ethical goal. — gurugeorge

I replied to gloaming, who wrote:"

Hedonism is the force — gloaming

".
If we consider again Socrates's thesis:"doing injustice is worse than suffering injustice”,
it was deciphered recently by Deleuse and Guattari as "Where one believed there was the law, there is, in fact, desire and desire alone. Justice is desire and not law."

I am going to side with Socrates — gloaming

Don't you think that Socrates was using his thesis just as a pretext? Indeed, he was obsessed by the desire to win by any cost.

A triumph of desire over pleasure? Hardly. Hedonism is the force majeure of modern thinking, as I see it. Self indulgence is a pressure, to be sure, but it's mostly as an end-state t — gloaming

We disagree just in terms: Hedonism is based on a desire,
and self-indulgence is a pleasure. If you write that self-indulgence is a pressure, that means that it is a result of the more fundamental process, causing an endless pleasure-chasing.

"Massumi is simply recapitulating in his way".
According to Massumi, the subject of enancuation " I do" is the abstract machine.
It is a different interpretation of this performative.

A good example of how a performative function of " I speak" can be clarified is saying " I do" at a wedding ceremony. As Brian Massumi wrote: "Say " I do" and your life will never be the same.
Your legal, social and familial status instantly changes. Before you open your mouth you are one thing. By the time you close it you have landed in another world. A particular man and a particular woman say " I do" - their words undoubtedly have personal meaning for them in their hearts! But their personal intension is not responsible for the magical transformation that has changed their lives.
What has brought them to say this words and what makes this words effectively transformative is a complex interplay of laws, customs, social pressure and tax law. The stereotypical nature of the expression is an indication that it is fundamentally impersonal! The subject saying " I do" is not a person, it is a social function."

I did not answer it, please look at my answer to andrewk

You made good points about what is "context"! Yet, if I take a risk to develop them farther, you argue that each situation of each speech act is unique and singular.
If so, it is impossable to theorize and philosophize about language! Yet, individuation and singularization of
each speech act are realized through the set of pre-personal affective forces and post- personal ethico- political forces external to language. It looks like Austinian speech acts theory does not consider all of them.

Thank you for taking part in discussion with me!:smile:
Probably we belong to different linguistic communities.:lol:

" I do not think you can build this fortress yourself" - Foucault's project was about general cultural situation in 60s., it is not about somebody's individual situation.
Also, it looks like Foucault tried to oppose Austin's theory of performative enancuation. In short, in a very simplistic way, his concept is neither linguistic, nor psychological - Foucault's "I speak" is about automization and oppression of Cogito - it is just an appearance of independent self- affirmation.

" I object", I resign", I love", " I promise" - all of them are dependent
indirectly on " I speak".

Foucault problematized " I speak" as having the two propositions hidden in the statement ( " I speak" and I say that I speak"): " They are in no way compromise each other. I am protected by the impenetrable fortress of the assertion's self- assertion, by the way it coincides with itself, averting all danger of error, by saying no more that I am speaking. Neither in the words in question nor in the subject that pronounces them is there an obstacle or insinuation to come between the object- proposition and
the proposition that states it. It is therefore true, undeniably true, that I am speaking when I say that I am speaking".

" To take your "I speak" as being spoken in a specific language",
" To see any utterance in a living language as also carrying commitment to a linguistic community".
Is that possible to pose the problem of " I speak" using resources of your tradition? (Austin, Strawson, Greese) I would like to specify "the language and the linguistic community " following the lead of French thinkers. They tried to broaden the concept of illucative forces, so that "I speak" would become
a powerful and flexible analytical tool.

"The meaning of the speech acts can not be analyzed without context".You are right. Yet, what do you mean applying the word " context"? You list of examples can be continued
infinitely, so some abstraction and generalization is unavoidable.

Is it possible to find a link between "I lie" and "I speak"? Both can be split into two interdependent propositions.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to try to analyze " I speak" relating it to different philosophical traditions and theories of language.

Anyway, thank you.

What is your area?

For Paolo Virno " I speak" is an "absolute performative" which has a function of foregrounding the "event of Language". Another example is Foucault's theory of parrhesiastic enancuation.

About Lazzaroto there is a quote above.
" I speak" has a special privileged status, different from any other statement; it can support or destroy the whole theory.

Actually, " I speak" is a kind of artificial construct and for better
understanding we need to relate this utterance iwith a concrete situation. But how can we state
that "the result of the utterance is mere information" as Lazzaroto did? What kind of information?