| |
|
Another point of approach would be a comparison between theocratic models of exsistence and atheist secular models, religous models need essences to function, essential beliefs tenets of faith, personalities made up or based around those precepts also require a sense of essence to function within that structure, the greater belief structure reflected at the level of individual identity.
Atheist secular theories, change and mutate as new research is undertaken, the results arent fixed into a permanent state, nor is an individual identity when based on a theory of self, more research into self reveals other aspects of identity other areas to explore and experiment with, each area explored, including religous areas becomes a new theory to the individual exploring it, would that for example invalidate a religous experience because it was seen as theory rather than fact? i dont think so.
So with identity, if it is held very lightly as a point of exploration something to be mused over and played with, a theory of self, rather than the facts about self. Does self have to be laden with heavy meaning and being? or can it be carefree, not quite solid, dancing through life with a greater faith than religion, that the universe does what it does, come what may. no matter who i am being, what i am doing, the world keeps turning, alive or dead the dance of life and death goes on, wether i be peace activist or war monger, life and death keep cycling each other.
Identity is a side effect of communication, social systems and education, its import is highlighted because without a majority of individuals containing these conceptualisations, recording them etc. These networks are prone to collapse without the energy invested by the individuals who self identify with these structures.
Abstract conceptions like corporations only esist as ideas without individuals to invest in them, Abstarct notions like the self and self identitie(s) function along similar premises, if i practice really hard at kung fu, everyday i may well become quite good at it over a period of time, does that make me a martial artist? perhaps. Now what if i drop my network of associations to kung fu entirely, going to class, literature, dvds etc. At what point do i stop becoming the martial artist as self identity? when i drop everything is there a sudden change in my state of exsistence? or was i really ever a martial artist at all, isnt that a label to help define a certain group of individuals who practice a certain hobby. need i self identify as a martial artist to do martial arts? I dont need to be a thing to do a thing, i can function to all appearences as the role if i practice that role, to the point if where the practice is good enough, those that look on may well think i am being that role.
Reality, personality, truth and lies are not a rigid affair defined by investment in abstract notions of what reality or self is. To employ metaphor it is like water constantly changing shape, appearing solid as ice, flowing like a stream as disparate as vapour, raining down from above and flowing up from underneath, and washing notions of self away in tidal waves, or gently shaping the stones as they have become stuck in the river bed. |
|
|
