Your Identity is a Social Transaction

[uglypeoplefucking]

The terms and concepts from which our identities are constructed are furnished by society - name, gender, appearance, vocabulary, behavior, habits and mores, preconceptions and beliefs, language, the whole of the individual’s experience, are all fundamentally and irreducibly social. You are part and product of the environment in which you participate. What is YOU is largely determined from what might traditionally be considered “outside” of you. The boundaries of the individual are set by society, and society teaches us to function with and within those boundaries in certain ways. Since we basically are what we do in the broadest sense, we then are what society makes us: all the options for what to do (and, by extension, who to be) are provided or assigned to us by our environments. And our environment is a social one. Thus who YOU are (and who “i” am) is a social exchange: in the ongoing act of identifying ourselves, we select, or merely passively accept, certain options supplied to us by . . . wait for it . . . society.

The immediate response to this proposition is usually that “society” is an abstraction, a mere collection of individuals, and it is only at the level of the individual (a discrete, self-contained, often self-determined, almost monadic unity) that we encounter any concrete reality upon which we can base our understanding. The problem with such a response, however, is that while our physical bodies may not be abstractions, our identities are (collections of prefab traits and characteristics, concepts and ideas - far from being unified, concrete objects) in very much the same way that society is an abstraction. In other words: both are, to put it in somewhat crude terms, constructs - but not really constructs, more transactions, give and take, pull and push, between what we learn to perceive as ourself, and the rest of our environments (in the case of your personal identity), or between individuals, institutions, and infrastructure (in the case of society).

So the individual, far from ever being self-determined (whatever that might mean) is the result of an ongoing process of exchange between, on one side, an object we call the person, planted, nurtured and distinguished (with no small degree of arbitrariness) by society, and on the other side, the environment from within which that person is originally distinguished and then taught to go on distinguishing hirself. The process is not one by which the person integrates itself into the environment (as the traditial individualist view would have it), but rather by which the person emerges from said environment. Even before we become individuals we are ALREADY integral to society because we and it are of the same stuff. We are, in essence, fragments or pieces of society synthesized and named.

[anon]

Nice post, ugly. But I think there’s a danger here, which is that a person looks to construct their sense of self-worth through their interactions with the world. I think maybe this kind of view is what leads some people to feel worthless if they fail a test, get fired from a job, etc.

@Traleg Kyabgon

Normally, in order to find self-esteem we have to prove ourselves to be better than somebody else, to be competitive, to be thinking that it is a dog-eat-dog world. ‘I have to be slimmer or more attractive, more articulate, make more money or drive a better car, live in a bigger house than somebody else, than my friends’. Just to boost self-confidence. Neither am I saying that to meditate we should be living in poverty. What I’m saying is, in terms of how we go about dealing with our sense of self identity, self worth, when we go into that sense of inner, the original dwelling place, through meditation, a real sense of self confidence arises. Self confidence is very different to being ego centered, selfish, arrogant, because one begins to find comfort being able to be in oneself, with oneself.

Normally what do we do? We look for comfort elsewhere, through somebody or something else! Our arrogance, our egocentricity, our selfishness, all of that is based on what we have, what we think we have, but never on what we really are.

source

I agree with what you’re saying, if you’re saying that this socially constructed “self” is pure delusion. When you say, for instance, “Thus who YOU are (and who “i” am) is a social exchange”, I hope you’re not implicitly saying “who you REALLY are”. I don’t believe there is or ever has been any “self”, ultimately speaking - whether socially constructed or not. But on a more down to earth level, where we all (or at least most of us) do have a sense of self, I think we have to be careful about where our source of self-worth comes from.

Importantly:

@Traleg Kyabgon

The self, the original dwelling place, is that space where we do not worry about who I am, what I am, what physical characteristics I have, what attributes, qualities, credentials that I have. No, it’s open space.

[d63]

I’ll probably have to read through this a couple of times to able to fully understand it. But it seems to fit into the role that roles play in our lives. If the discoveries of cognitive and psycho-biology are correct, we are these molecular constellations of often conflicting impulses, ideas, and beliefs caught in a kind of Sartrean forward flight making choices based on whatever aspect of our makeup happens to hold dominance at the time. In other words, the idea of a coherent self may well be a myth. We see evidence of this in the way we behave in dreams or when we’re drunk.

But what gives this chaos potential for order may well be the roles we play within our social systems. It’s what may well be what pulls it all together into a coherent and comprehensible molar whole -despite the little deviations that occur in altered states.

In psych 101, I learned that one of worst things you could do with a cop was try to defy their authority. This is because to undermine their authority would be to undermine their role as authority, thereby leaving them susceptible to the chaos of their actual psychic makeup. Therefore, it would stand to reason that they would do anything to re-establish their role and, thereby, re-establish order.

Now I realize that there may be a little intellectual reaching here (something similar to the Semantic Gerbil Wheel), but it is still worth considering.

[fuse]

In general, a thing’s identity is always given by its context. Its context is always extrinsic. Above we have a black dot. Below we have a black rectangle.

Not only does society affect individual identity, but, to some degree, every part of one’s environment does, filling in one’s context.

But identity and experience are two different type of things.

@uglypeoplefucking

The immediate response to this proposition is usually that “society” is an abstraction, a mere collection of individuals, and it is only at the level of the individual (a discrete, self-contained, often self-determined, almost monadic unity) that we encounter any concrete reality upon which we can base our understanding. The problem with such a response, however, is that while our physical bodies may not be abstractions, our identities are (collections of prefab traits and characteristics, concepts and ideas - far from being unified, concrete objects) in very much the same way that society is an abstraction.

I agree with all this. None of this addresses experience. Is experience itself not actual? Is experience itself an abstraction? It would help if you could clarify what exactly you think experience is.

What specifically does it mean that “the whole of the individual’s experience [is] fundamentally and irreducibly social”? Why does it follow that because the individual is part and product of his environment that all experience is social? Would you say that a lizard’s experience is also fundamentally and irreducibly social? How so?

[Moreno]

@uglypeoplefucking

The terms and concepts from which our identities are constructed are furnished by society - name, gender, appearance, vocabulary, behavior, habits and mores, preconceptions and beliefs, language, the whole of the individual’s experience, are all fundamentally and irreducibly social. You are part and product of the environment in which you participate. What is YOU is largely determined from what might traditionally be considered “outside” of you.

Your OP can be seen as applying the Doctrine of Internal Relations to personal identity.

The doctrine of internal relations is the philosophical doctrine that all relations are internal to their bearers, in the sense that they are essential to them and the bearers would not be what they are without them.

more here…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_o … _relations

[uglypeoplefucking]

@anon

Nice post, ugly. But I think there’s a danger here, which is that a person looks to construct their sense of self-worth through their interactions with the world. I think maybe this kind of view is what leads some people to feel worthless if they fail a test, get fired from a job, etc.

@Traleg Kyabgon

Normally, in order to find self-esteem we have to prove ourselves to be better than somebody else, to be competitive, to be thinking that it is a dog-eat-dog world. ‘I have to be slimmer or more attractive, more articulate, make more money or drive a better car, live in a bigger house than somebody else, than my friends’. Just to boost self-confidence. Neither am I saying that to meditate we should be living in poverty. What I’m saying is, in terms of how we go about dealing with our sense of self identity, self worth, when we go into that sense of inner, the original dwelling place, through meditation, a real sense of self confidence arises. Self confidence is very different to being ego centered, selfish, arrogant, because one begins to find comfort being able to be in oneself, with oneself.

Normally what do we do? We look for comfort elsewhere, through somebody or something else! Our arrogance, our egocentricity, our selfishness, all of that is based on what we have, what we think we have, but never on what we really are.

source

I agree with what you’re saying, if you’re saying that this socially constructed “self” is pure delusion. When you say, for instance, “Thus who YOU are (and who “i” am) is a social exchange”, I hope you’re not implicitly saying “who you REALLY are”. I don’t believe there is or ever has been any “self”, ultimately speaking - whether socially constructed or not. But on a more down to earth level, where we all (or at least most of us) do have a sense of self, I think we have to be careful about where our source of self-worth comes from.

Importantly:

@Traleg Kyabgon

The self, the original dwelling place, is that space where we do not worry about who I am, what I am, what physical characteristics I have, what attributes, qualities, credentials that I have. No, it’s open space.

Thanks Anon - i take your point about self-worth to heart - it’s a troublesome issue - one thought i have is that accepting the sort of schema i outlined in the OP may inevitably involve accepting that the self qua distinct “individual” really doesn’t have any greater, fixed, fundamental value, regardless, as you say, of what it may own, or look like, or be capable of doing better than others . . . what this means in practice is that we are free to value ourselves for any arbitrary reason that might present itself, and maintaining a healthy self-esteem is a matter of valuing oneself for reasons which are not as fragile and transient as those you and Kyabgon talk about. so in what, then, should we base our sense of self-worth? honestly, i don’t know - it’s a question that i’ve struggled with on a personal level for a long time . . . what are your thoughts?

as for self being “pure delusion”, i think that’s stronger language than i would use - imo, our identities DO exist once they are formed - it is not a delusion persay that i am an animal with the adopted name “uglypeoplefucking” who enjoys playing around on internet philosophy sites - in that practical sense, what i call “me” does indeed exist and play an integral social role. so i think it would be fair to say that that construction or exchange is, practically speaking, what “i” really am in relation to society - so when you say: "I hope you’re not implicitly saying ‘who you REALLY are’ ", i would respond that that is indeed what i am saying because that is how “you” is defined. but you remain correct that there is a more basic sense in which “you” simply does not exist, so it’s more about the semantics of personal pronouns and less about ontological realities . . .

[uglypeoplefucking]

@d63

I’ll probably have to read through this a couple of times to able to fully understand it. But it seems to fit into the role that roles play in our lives. If the discoveries of cognitive and psycho-biology are correct, we are these molecular constellations of often conflicting impulses, ideas, and beliefs caught in a kind of Sartrean forward flight making choices based on whatever aspect of our makeup happens to hold dominance at the time. In other words, the idea of a coherent self may well be a myth. We see evidence of this in the way we behave in dreams or when we’re drunk.

But what gives this chaos potential for order may well be the roles we play within our social systems. It’s what may well be what pulls it all together into a coherent and comprehensible molar whole -despite the little deviations that occur in altered states.

In psych 101, I learned that one of worst things you could do with a cop was try to defy their authority. This is because to undermine their authority would be to undermine their role as authority, thereby leaving them susceptible to the chaos of their actual psychic makeup. Therefore, it would stand to reason that they would do anything to re-establish their role and, thereby, re-establish order.

Now I realize that there may be a little intellectual reaching here (something similar to the Semantic Gerbil Wheel), but it is still worth considering.

What you’re saying is actually fairly on point. it describes one of the specific dynamics i’m talking about by which our identity is determined and maintained - we all fill various social functions or roles, and those are taken to be intrinsic to who and what we are - a challenge to those roles strikes at the very core of our being precisely because as “individuals” we all fundamentally consist of such social relationships . . .

i wouldn’t call the coherent self a “myth” however. it seems to me to be more of a tool - something we invent and put to use . . . but then again, myths are tools as well in their own way, so it’s probably just different ways of talking about the same thing . . . ah, the ambiguity of language!

[uglypeoplefucking]

@fuse

In general, a thing’s identity is always given by its context. Its context is always extrinsic. Above we have a black dot. Below we have a black rectangle.

Not only does society affect individual identity, but, to some degree, every part of one’s environment does, filling in one’s context.

But identity and experience are two different type of things.

@uglypeoplefucking

The immediate response to this proposition is usually that “society” is an abstraction, a mere collection of individuals, and it is only at the level of the individual (a discrete, self-contained, often self-determined, almost monadic unity) that we encounter any concrete reality upon which we can base our understanding. The problem with such a response, however, is that while our physical bodies may not be abstractions, our identities are (collections of prefab traits and characteristics, concepts and ideas - far from being unified, concrete objects) in very much the same way that society is an abstraction.

I agree with all this. None of this addresses experience. Is experience itself not actual? Is experience itself an abstraction? It would help if you could clarify what exactly you think experience is.

well that’s a big and difficult question - i think when we isolate a given experience, it can be abstract or actual depending on which part of experience we are focusing on - experience itself is such a broad, all-encompassing term, describing that which is constantly unfolding, changing, and taking different forms, often simultaneously. it’s the (re)unification of subject and object in time. it is reality as we understand it and so is the very paragon of actuality, but it is shot through with all our concepts and ideas and so integrates abstractions, making them real - in this way, our identity, with all its component parts - abstract, actual and otherwise, is like the eye through which we perceive ourselves and our environments. it provides all the categories and terms with which we process and understand our experience - and those categories and terms come to us via social means . . . i don’t know if that makes sense - but, basically, i see one’s understanding of what one is as the basis for all individual experience.

What specifically does it mean that “the whole of the individual’s experience [is] fundamentally and irreducibly social”? Why does it follow that because the individual is part and product of his environment that all experience is social? Would you say that a lizard’s experience is also fundamentally and irreducibly social? How so?

No, i wouldn’t say it about the lizard because, among other things, lizards are not social animals, but i admit that sort of begs the question. I guess presumably lizards have experiences, but they do not develop individual identities based on their relationship to other lizards, so those experiences aren’t social.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Moreno

@uglypeoplefucking

The terms and concepts from which our identities are constructed are furnished by society - name, gender, appearance, vocabulary, behavior, habits and mores, preconceptions and beliefs, language, the whole of the individual’s experience, are all fundamentally and irreducibly social. You are part and product of the environment in which you participate. What is YOU is largely determined from what might traditionally be considered “outside” of you.

Your OP can be seen as applying the Doctrine of Internal Relations to personal identity.

The doctrine of internal relations is the philosophical doctrine that all relations are internal to their bearers, in the sense that they are essential to them and the bearers would not be what they are without them.

more here…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_o … _relations

thanks for the link Moreno!

however, i’m not sure i fully understand what it means to characterize relations as “internal”, or how that would contrast with the notion of “external relations” - it’s a dichotomy i feel a little uncomfortable with - can you perhaps clarify the terms for me?

[Moreno]

@uglypeoplefucking

thanks for the link Moreno!

however, i’m not sure i fully understand what it means to characterize relations as “internal”, or how that would contrast with the notion of “external relations” - it’s a dichotomy i feel a little uncomfortable with - can you perhaps clarify the terms for me?

Sure. The relations are internal to the object/person. IOW they are a part of it. If you say the relations are external, they do not constitute the identity of said thing.

Another take from somewhere else on the web.

doctrine of internal relations

Doctrine that all relations are internal to their bearers, in the sense that they are essential to them and the bearers would not be what they are without them.

Some relations are clearly internal in this sense (four would not be four unless it were related to two by being its square), and some relations are internal to their bearers under one description but not under another (a wife would not be a wife unless suitably related to a husband, but Mary would still be Mary had she not married).

The doctrine that all relations are internal implies that everything depends on everything else for being what it is, and is therefore associated with monistic or objective idealism.

[d63]

@uglypeoplefucking

@d63

I’ll probably have to read through this a couple of times to able to fully understand it. But it seems to fit into the role that roles play in our lives. If the discoveries of cognitive and psycho-biology are correct, we are these molecular constellations of often conflicting impulses, ideas, and beliefs caught in a kind of Sartrean forward flight making choices based on whatever aspect of our makeup happens to hold dominance at the time. In other words, the idea of a coherent self may well be a myth. We see evidence of this in the way we behave in dreams or when we’re drunk.

But what gives this chaos potential for order may well be the roles we play within our social systems. It’s what may well be what pulls it all together into a coherent and comprehensible molar whole -despite the little deviations that occur in altered states.

In psych 101, I learned that one of worst things you could do with a cop was try to defy their authority. This is because to undermine their authority would be to undermine their role as authority, thereby leaving them susceptible to the chaos of their actual psychic makeup. Therefore, it would stand to reason that they would do anything to re-establish their role and, thereby, re-establish order.

Now I realize that there may be a little intellectual reaching here (something similar to the Semantic Gerbil Wheel), but it is still worth considering.

What you’re saying is actually fairly on point. it describes one of the specific dynamics i’m talking about by which our identity is determined and maintained - we all fill various social functions or roles, and those are taken to be intrinsic to who and what we are - a challenge to those roles strikes at the very core of our being precisely because as “individuals” we all fundamentally consist of such social relationships . . .

i wouldn’t call the coherent self a “myth” however. it seems to me to be more of a tool - something we invent and put to use . . . but then again, myths are tools as well in their own way, so it’s probably just different ways of talking about the same thing . . . ah, the ambiguity of language!

Also relevant, I think, would be the chaos created by the loss of a role through the loss of a job. I think this works better than the cop example in that the cop example may simply be an issue of threatening an addiction to power.

As for the myth of the coherent self, your point is certainly worth some thought. “The myth of the coherent self” would certainly seem a seductive phrase to the intellectually curious, much as my previous point about cops. So it warrants some scrutiny. I mean we do have an experience of a coherent self since we don’t just do things out of the blue all of the time. At the same time, my point about altered states and dreaming does make a powerful counterpoint. It’s food for thought.

That said, I have to wonder if points made in previous strings about position in space and time might not have something to do with it. It may have something to do with the sense of continuity.

[anon]

@Moreno

@uglypeoplefucking

thanks for the link Moreno!

however, i’m not sure i fully understand what it means to characterize relations as “internal”, or how that would contrast with the notion of “external relations” - it’s a dichotomy i feel a little uncomfortable with - can you perhaps clarify the terms for me?

Sure. The relations are internal to the object/person. IOW they are a part of it. If you say the relations are external, they do not constitute the identity of said thing.

Another take from somewhere else on the web.

doctrine of internal relations

Doctrine that all relations are internal to their bearers, in the sense that they are essential to them and the bearers would not be what they are without them.

Some relations are clearly internal in this sense (four would not be four unless it were related to two by being its square), and some relations are internal to their bearers under one description but not under another (a wife would not be a wife unless suitably related to a husband, but Mary would still be Mary had she not married).

The doctrine that all relations are internal implies that everything depends on everything else for being what it is, and is therefore associated with monistic or objective idealism.

But what is internal, and what external? Isn’t the judgement of what is one’s self and what isn’t exactly the same judgement as to what is internal and what isn’t?

[Moreno]

@anon

But what is internal, and what external?

Internal means that it is a part of the identity of whatever is referred to.
My identity is not simply what I am made of, but also includes the dynamic interactions I have with other people, with nature, whatever.
If you say something is external to my identity then it can change and I don’t. Most people, even those who believe in the doctrine of internal relations, would think that if some rock shifts on a planet in another galaxy from ours, this does not affect who I am. I had no relationship with that rock’s position or the rock itself. Some people believe they are monads, and think of their identity as primarily their height weight thoughts emotions. Men have tended to be more believers in the doctrine of external relations, women have tended to identify with their relationships more. Different cultures emphasize one or the other more. In some cultures you are your family or your kinship group in a way many Westerners could not connect with - sure, I have cousins in Jersey, but that has nothing to do with who I am.

Isn’t the judgement of what is one’s self and what isn’t exactly the same judgement as to what is internal and what isn’t?

Yes, the doctrine of internal relations is saying that relation(ship)s are internal. It raises issues like if you get remarried, you are not quite the same person. Or perhaps not the same person at all.

[anon]

I guess what I’m trying to say is that “If you say the relations are external, they do not constitute the identity of said thing” isn’t a way of determining identity. To say “this is my identity” is to declare that some relationships are internal to it and some external to it. It is the exact same judgement, rather than a reasoned or scientific method used to reach a conclusion about identity.

[anon]

@uglypeoplefucking

Thanks Anon - i take your point about self-worth to heart - it’s a troublesome issue - one thought i have is that accepting the sort of schema i outlined in the OP may inevitably involve accepting that the self qua distinct “individual” really doesn’t have any greater, fixed, fundamental value, regardless, as you say, of what it may own, or look like, or be capable of doing better than others . . . what this means in practice is that we are free to value ourselves for any arbitrary reason that might present itself, and maintaining a healthy self-esteem is a matter of valuing oneself for reasons which are not as fragile and transient as those you and Kyabgon talk about. so in what, then, should we base our sense of self-worth? honestly, i don’t know - it’s a question that i’ve struggled with on a personal level for a long time . . . what are your thoughts?

I don’t think we should base our self worth on anything at all. That might sound bizarre or radical, but basing our self worth on anything makes us depend on factors out of our control, which leaves us vulnerable. When Traleg says “The self, the original dwelling place, is that space where we do not worry about who I am, what I am, what physical characteristics I have, what attributes, qualities, credentials that I have. No, it’s open space.” - I think he means that literally. “Open space”. People can learn to accept groundlessness in their lives. People who train in this way (some people don’t seem to need to train in this way - perhaps life’s hardships have provided more than enough training) often find their sense of self-worth increase, at the same time that their highs of confidence level off into something more stable.

as for self being “pure delusion”, i think that’s stronger language than i would use - imo, our identities DO exist once they are formed - it is not a delusion persay that i am an animal with the adopted name “uglypeoplefucking” who enjoys playing around on internet philosophy sites - in that practical sense, what i call “me” does indeed exist and play an integral social role. so i think it would be fair to say that that construction or exchange is, practically speaking, what “i” really am in relation to society - so when you say: "I hope you’re not implicitly saying ‘who you REALLY are’ ", i would respond that that is indeed what i am saying because that is how “you” is defined. but you remain correct that there is a more basic sense in which “you” simply does not exist, so it’s more about the semantics of personal pronouns and less about ontological realities . . .

That seems reasonable to me. But consider this example:

A shy woman and an outgoing man are a couple. They go out together and their friends think of them in a certain way. The woman is clearly shy and the man clearly outgoing. This goes on for 40 years. Then the man dies and after some time the woman begins to flourish socially. Without her partner at her side anymore, there is more space in the conversations and she feels the urge to fill that space herself, as her partner isn’t there to jump in first all the time. So now she isn’t seen as shy anymore. People now think of her as outgoing.

You could say her identity included the characteristic “shyness” and then it changed and she was “outgoing”, but I think both qualities are social constructs (and, importantly, artificially imposed constraints), as you pointed out. But those qualities aren’t part of what she “really” is, or was, at any time, at all. In that sense, I think identity (or the self) is delusion. Because of your description of identity as a social transaction, it can be said that identity doesn’t exist at all.

[Moreno]

@anon

I guess what I’m trying to say is that “If you say the relations are external, they do not constitute the identity of said thing” isn’t a way of determining identity.

No. But it is, as far as I can see, always coupled with descriging identity not in terms of relationships, but in terms of composition. I am a homo sapien male, so tall, with an IQ of X, brown hair…etc. Of course when pressed one can find relations hidden in composition. But I think the distinction is meaningful. If someone is conscious of and emphasizes relations in their description of their identity they probably consider their identity as something dynamic and not simply in them.

To say “this is my identity” is to declare that some relationships are internal to it and some external to it. It is the exact same judgement, rather than a reasoned or scientific method used to reach a conclusion about identity.

I’m not quite sure what your issue is. I am not saying that people’s ways of describing their identities is scientific, though I would say they are generally all reasoned - well or not is another issue. Not that I asserted this until now.

IN practice everyone I know presents as mixed. Some relations are considered a part of identity, some are not. They tend to rest on a spectrum. With objects, you can often see people viewing them as relations are external. A rock is so big and made of this. Rather than thinking of it as exerting pressure on the sand or rather being in a dynamic with the sand below it and as warming that portion of the beach since it is darker than the sand, in a gravitational dynamic with the earth as a whole, arguably a portion of myself in that time I am looking at the rock, and so on.

Given how we see ourselves as more dynamic than rocks we are much more likely to include relations internally. but, as I said, I see some people doing this more than others and significantly.

And when relations change significantly, we can see how some people think they have not changed and others think that their identity has changed.

[anon]

I think my issue was with something you weren’t really saying. I think.

[Wobbly]

Yes.

Insofar as we are dealing with an individual in relation to society as a whole, then we are rather passive. However, the experiences that an individual has within society are particularized and very specific. I may be passive to the oppressive notion that “this or that” is morally wrong because society says it is, but I am not passive to the specifics of how I interact with this social fact on a daily basis. In fact, my prior experiences, worldview, and mentality do a great deal to color all my interactions in a very personal way. Put it this way, we are not islands unto ourselves, but we are not just a collection of experiences and interactions either. We are a collection of our own manor of experiencing and interacting, and how we individually internalize experiences is what gives us ‘identity’ different from society.

We are a locus of interaction.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@anon

I don’t think we should base our self worth on anything at all. That might sound bizarre or radical, but basing our self worth on anything makes us depend on factors out of our control, which leaves us vulnerable. When Traleg says “The self, the original dwelling place, is that space where we do not worry about who I am, what I am, what physical characteristics I have, what attributes, qualities, credentials that I have. No, it’s open space.” - I think he means that literally. “Open space”. People can learn to accept groundlessness in their lives. People who train in this way (some people don’t seem to need to train in this way - perhaps life’s hardships have provided more than enough training) often find their sense of self-worth increase, at the same time that their highs of confidence level off into something more stable.

when he talks about the self as “the original dwelling place”, who or what actually dwells there? just emptiness?

That seems reasonable to me. But consider this example:

A shy woman and an outgoing man are a couple. They go out together and their friends think of them in a certain way. The woman is clearly shy and the man clearly outgoing. This goes on for 40 years. Then the man dies and after some time the woman begins to flourish socially. Without her partner at her side anymore, there is more space in the conversations and she feels the urge to fill that space herself, as her partner isn’t there to jump in first all the time. So now she isn’t seen as shy anymore. People now think of her as outgoing.

You could say her identity included the characteristic “shyness” and then it changed and she was “outgoing”, but I think both qualities are social constructs (and, importantly, artificially imposed constraints), as you pointed out. But those qualities aren’t part of what she “really” is, or was, at any time, at all. In that sense, I think identity (or the self) is delusion. Because of your description of identity as a social transaction, it can be said that identity doesn’t exist at all.

what could it really mean to say that identity doesn’t exist at all, though? i don’t think it necessarily follows from identity being a construct that it doesn’t exist at all. i’m describing actual phenomena when i discuss a particular individual, no? you yourself refer to an entity that exhibits shyness under certain conditions yet is gregarious under certain others - surely that entity exists or occurs on some level. i see constructions like identity as practical realities, always changing and evolving, but as real as anything else in our experience …

[Tab]

Nice OP, UPF.

I’ll buy it.

The process is not one by which the person integrates itself into the environment (as the traditional individualist view would have it), but rather by which the person emerges from said environment. Even before we become individuals we are ALREADY integral to society because we and it are of the same stuff. We are, in essence, fragments or pieces of society synthesized and named.

I liked that bit. I think though you must be more specific when you say ‘society’ - I mean, I have met and interacted with bits of society, but not the whole beasty. I agree we are, or quickly become, reflections more or less of the people we know, befriend, love, or earn the emnity of during our lives - and their needs and projections. Just as whatever we are affects them in turn. We smear into each other, just a little, and sometimes a lot, depending on the forcefulness of our persona.

However we do also have some degree of choice in the social circles we move in, once we leave home anyway, and it could also be the case that we do possess a greater degree of individuality than you proscribe, but that because we naturally seek out others with whom many of our character traits and beliefs are shared, and become intermingled with that group, it only appears that we (as a group) have somehow ‘averaged’ our personas as a result of some social gestalt syndrome - whereas in reality we were already as we are prior to the formation of the clique.

That we are ‘fragments or pieces of society synthesized and named’ is moot, if true originality is impossible, but that does not totally rule out future novelty as there may be viable solutions to the socio-psychological problems we face - inevitable to the system itself, which is also evolving, emerging - as yet unstumbled upon. And as we are evolvable beings, both physically and mentally, some capacity for random mutation - however guided or constrained by our neurophysiology - and hence inherrent novelty, must exist.

Some more socially-variable version of the Borg, to get all Trekkie, is still not wholly what we are.