It seems nothing about me must remain. I mean, I neednt even stay female. So what about me is me and cannot change?
And wheres james no 2?
well, your history alone makes you unique and greatly influences who you’ve become as a person. well your genetic codeing makes you unique,and they cant gen. engineer yet. if they can and i’m not aware of it, they obviously arnt doing a good enough job of it. this is a good question tho. a guess almost any personality faset could change over time exept 1:resolves. decitions. important onces like integrity.
these to can change ,but can be more resistent to change even to the point of impossiblity,in my opinion.
and, james no 2,he’s not very regular in here is he? not that i know of.
James No 2 in in the US at the moment, I think. He isn’t here all that regularly, mores the pity…
hehe, SIATD, are you a fan of office space? I can talk forever about that film, favorite scene? what do you like about it? did you like joanna? hehe
I am here, everyone. Staring out the window, as it were. Very artistic. 
Actually I am in Riverside, CA, as you will notice.
James
I never realised that this clip was from office space, I just thought that it looked cool. I did enjoy the movie and may even be watching it tonight, if a friend of mine who said that he has it wasn’t mistaken or lying…
‘Back to work’ he says, then appears to have hours to spend photoing himself staring out of the window…
“I can talk forever”
Now THAT I would like to see!
Leave James alone, SIATD.
He’s pondering the significance of eternity, and fractional divisions thereof, as mysterious angelic voices sing to him from a great distance, providing the necessary clues for the construction of his thrilling new trend.
Detrop,
Please, go and invent your new religion. I’m sure that it would make you happy…
come visit me! i live nearby!! 
“Only when they deny me will I return to them”- détropathustra
Ha!
I mean, of course, if we cannot produce political or cultural revolution (I’d prefer the latter, I must say) then a new religion is the best way forward…
PhilosophyGirl
Yes. I know what you are wondering about. Though you seem unable or unwilling to go past this question, which suggests to me that you are getting something out of this process of proverbially smashing your head against the wall.
I suspect that this question has an existential dimension for you, which means you have already situated yourself in a determinate conceptual location - in other words, it might be said - because you have already ‘identified’ yourself in a certain way. What you are ‘getting’ from this identification is a kind of certainty which at once belies and first establishes the position from which you proclaim your ‘disintegrated’ state.
This is not an answer to your question. It is an analysis of your need to ask it. It implies that you do not ask the question merely out of ‘disinterested curiosity’, but that the need for this question expresses an aspect of your self-understanding, i.e. your use of language and language proficiency.
That you are entirely unable to see the point of what I am saying, means that I am forced to take up the game which you are playing, rather than showing you a way to stop playing it; which from my point of view would be by far the greater gift.
There are dozens of different ways to answer this. To begin with, you need to stop assuming that your horrible quantitative logic is self-evidently valid and applicable to the conceptual analysis of identity. Otherwise you tend to end up with quasi-paradoxes like 'how many grains of sand make a ‘heap’?.. and the like.; i.e. you will start thinking that you are logically forced to conclude that there is ‘no such thing’ as identity, which would be a trite and superficial conclusion, not because it is ‘false’, but because it is based on flawed reasoning and is therefore not something which you ‘know’ in the sense which you would like. It cannot be proven or shown using this kind of reasoning.
If you can lose your identity by some quantitative change, two possible conclusions might be deduced. One is that ‘identity’ is a vague or proximate concept. The other, which is really just the flip-side of the same coin, is that supposedly ‘strict’, quantitative identity is never attainable. Because this would be a necessary truth, it also means that it never was attainable, and never will be. In other words, there is no identity, in just the same way that, supposedly, there is no ‘heap’ of sand.
However the conclusion that identity is a proximate or vague concept cannot be proved using arguments designed to show how there is never any such thing as ‘self-presence’, because of the supposed effects of ‘temporal change’ or the mighty Heraclitean flux. This is because quantitative change can be differentiated to an infinite degree, in the name of ‘rigor’ and ‘exactitude’, in such a way that it finally becomes self-defeating and self-contradictory. Differentiation without limit, in other words, is an impossible and misguided ideal based on a false absolutization of a particular way of ‘doing’ philosophical analysis. An infinitely applied quantitative reasoning would imply that the categories of ‘vague’ and ‘proximate’ were also infinite, in that every concept could be theoretically split apart, ‘analysed’, to reveal yet ‘deeper’ layers of differentiation. No sooner had we reduced a putative identity to the ‘reality’ of its parts, than these parts themselves would become subject to the same over-riding requirement - to be broken apart over and over again. This ad-infinitum process is thus an ad-absurdum process - a regress towards madness, if you will.
What this therefore shows is that quantitative reasoning must be limited in its applicability, otherwise it would prove to be self-contradictory. In turn, this means that whereever differentiation or difference is posited, identity may also be posited in a way which is no less or no more arbitrary. The supposition that ‘identity’ is a ‘vague’ or ‘imprecise’ proxy-concept rooted in ‘natural language’, is therefore based on a false intuition predicated on an inappropriate universalization of quantitative or atomistic thinking beyond those areas or ‘language games’ in which it may be seen to have legitimate function.
Please take some time to think about this, as I will not likely articulate it again if you do not.
Regards,
James
embracetrees
Perhaps I will. Do not imagine that I have not thought about it. Likewise with Gamer in Chicago, and Dunamis in New York. Though the former is recalcitrant like a motherfucker, and I am not exactly without inhibitions of my own. It would certainly be an interesting experience, none the less. Let me think about it for a little while.
James
jamesno2,
dont you want to visit me? how do you like Riverside?
i wasnt really serious, but now that you mention it, it would be pretty awesome! we can just go have coffee somewhere (around alot of people cos i scared as fuck over those stories about internet rapists/murderers etc.) but yeah, we can shake hands and alk and it will be really awkward! i cant wait! tell me if youre going to be next to orange county.
p.s. how do you like cali?
California here he comes,
Right back where he started from
CALIFORNIA!!!
OH, CAAAAALLLLLLLLLL,
OHHHH
(IF only James’ name was Ryan, and he was from Chino)
Hey James, come visit me when you’re back in Sydney? 
PoR and I often meet at the Kristian Katholic Klub and we’d love to see you at Sunday’s Kross Burning. We already have the meat so just bring a nice bottle of red (human, not animal).
KKK2_33
Riverside is pretty cool.
(I am for instance quite stunned by the proportion of attractive girls on campus. What the hell is up with that? It must be 3-5 times higher than at UNSW. Which is ridiculous if you ask me.)
Anyhoo I have enjoyed settling in here, getting to know people etc. My professors are interesting, and my reading is progressing with the usual rapaciousness.
I also hope to see some of the other parts of California whilst I am here.
Perhaps.
James