Questions: Self Identity

[Guest]

Amici: I read an article with remarks by several directors on their productions of “Hamlet”. One in particular caused me to think further on something important to me—self identity. It is the thing I particularly look for in Shakespeare and nearly all the art works I love. I think it is the most elusive aspect of being a human person; sometimes I even think self-identity is an illusion.

So I quote the director below (my emphases) and wonder what some of you think. Not so much about his comments, but about your own identity—do you feel you have a grasp on it? how do you come about defining it? how important is it to you? how real is it to you?

Perdita

Yukio Ninagawa: This is my sixth Hamlet. I directed it first in the late 1970s when most Japanese productions were copies of English ones. I thought it was wrong to copy. I wanted to look at Hamlet as a universal text, and to make something that was visually different. The question the play asks is: "Who am I?" In Japanese theatre there is no drama to pursue that question, but a month ago, directing Oedipus Rex in Athens, I was sitting in the auditorium and thinking that all European theatre is about logical questioning, asking: "Where do I come from?"

The idea of defining your whole identity through logic doesn't exist in Japanese theatre; we're always too worried about confrontation.
…
Japanese actors don't debate things fiercely but British actors talk all the time. I've learned a lot from working with the British, things I'll take home as a souvenir. It is very scary for directors to direct Hamlet in England. But because I have a small disadvantage, that I can't speak English, other senses become sharper, I hope. I might want to do the play again. I think I will. full article

 

[Guest]

Interesting stuff. I think about my own "self identity" from time to time - not how others might see me and think of me, but how I perceive myself.

I think you're right, self identity can be somewhat of an illusion. I know what (not who) I'd like to be, and I know who I am. Those two seem to conflict at times.

I usually see myself in terms of roles, as in: wife, mother, daughter, lover, friend, writing partner, etc, etc, and all those roles do go into how I perceive myself. However, what I would like to be is often in conflict with one or more of my roles.

Ok, I'm rambling now, but, ultimately, I know who I am and I also love who I am. Whether I'll achieve all I want and be all I want, only time will tell.

Lou

 

[cloudy]

I'm startled like hell, sometimes, when friends or acquaintances say things to me about myself. How they perceive me to be.

I've heard "You're the strongest woman I've ever known." when inside, I don't feel that way at all.

Or, "You're always so in control." and I think my life is careening out of control all the damn time.

Interesting, the difference between the identity we give ourselves, and the identity others give us.

Like Lou, I'm very prone to look at myself in accordance with my "roles" instead of who I really am. And, although the roles someone has give clues, they don't always tell the whole story. Everyone has a very secret self, I think, deep inside them, that no one really knows, not even those closest to us.

 

[sweetnpetite]

IN terms of roles, as Lou mentioned, I think that everybody has a personal way of ranking these roles and many sometimes forget that it's ok for others to rank differently.

For instance, on may say "I am a person first, a woman second, and mexican third." This is a big part of there self identity. Some people feel that 'we are all a person first' and everything else next. They get very impatient with other's who's self identity begins with some other role. Another woman may see herself as a mexican first, a woman first, a daughter first, a mother first, a sister first, a liberal first, a Christian first, a writer first, a lefty first, a teacher first, a Capricorn first, an American Citizen first, an obsesive-compulsive first, a rape survivor first, or any number of other categories.

I really believe our 'ranking' of those roles, and our understanding of them and of the meanings of them is *extremely* important and often overlooked in terms of self identity. These rankings often change as we grow, heal, change. Sometimes a role takes over (such as mental illness or legal or financial problems) and obscure the other roles to the point that, although we may be a mother, an employee, a sister, those roles may *not* actually be included in our self identity. (So as was said, self identity is something of an illusion)

A distorted self identity can be dangerous, or sometimes it can be the only thing that allows us to cope or servive. It may even benefit us in some ways. (look at Joe Dirt- no matter what life dumped on him, he believed in himself and he believed that he had to just keep on keepin on.) Everyones self identity is distorted to some degree.

Self identity is different of course, both from *who we are* and from *who others see us as* and even *who we want others to see us as*.

Well now, this topic has got my head swimming a bit. thanks 'dita!

Remember the famous line from Alice in Wonderland?

"Who ARE you?

Who are YOU?

WHO are YOU?"

Well, who?

 

[sweetnpetite]

And isn't it strange how at times we can see with startling clarity who we really are, or something about ourselves- and be *completely* wrong?

How can we ever know that anything we know about ourselves is true? Perhaps the answer to questions like this is the true meaning of the word *faith*-- whatother choice is there but *insanity*?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Primarily, I am my occupation and education; secondarily, I am what I am to my loved ones.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Remember the famous line from Alice in Wonderland?

"Who ARE you?

Who are YOU?

WHO are YOU?"

Well, who?

Funny you should mention that...it's in my sigline. Since I recently started to rethink who I am, Dearest Charley recommended I read Alice's adventures again.
Seeing the transitions Alice goes through reminds us of how our lives are in transition and we change, we grow and we learn. We are not the same person we started out as on our journey.

This thread is so appropriatly timed for me, thanks Perdita.

 

[fogbank]

But the problem with self-identity is that it's so heavily based on the way that we define other people, and this calls heavily upon judgement that can often be flawed.

I, for example, consider myself intelligent. But when it comes down to it, I really don't know how intelligent other people are--all I know is how they behave in comparison to my own standards of intelligent behavior.

When you throw out all this judgement and go simply on logic, the only judgements you can make about yourself are grand, descartian deductions. And while these deductions are interesting, they could equally be deduced by anyone, meaning that infact you haven't defined yourself at all except to say that you're essentially the same as others.

I wish I had a copy of Hamlet handy for reference, but in Hamlet you have a person struggling with their identity. In part, he defines his identity by how he is not like anyone else. However, everyone in the audience relates to this, so infact Hamlet isn't that different. The popularity of stories about self-identity and of protagonists like Hamlet prove just how similar everyone is--there's a grand circular problem with this kind of self-identity. It's impossible to prove oneself to be unique when one is relating to the uniqueness of another.

One commonality amongst many of the people I know is a fierce desire to believe that they are infact unique. I think the reality (either beautiful or sad, depending on your perspective) is that we're all more similar than we like to pretend.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by fogbank

One commonality amongst many of the people I know is a fierce desire to believe that they are infact unique. I think the reality (either beautiful or sad, depending on your perspective) is that we're all more similar than we like to pretend.

Much agreed.

 

[Guest]

Fog, thank you! Yours is just the sort of reply I was looking for. I understand what everyone else has said, but I want to know more precisely how one achieves an identity.

I'm not sure how to put it, but I'll try this. You need not believe in god or an after-life, but imagine that you have died and are presenting yourself to a being like 'God'. You have no body. Your family or friends do not matter now. Who or what are you? What makes you up? Who are you when you are alone?

Perdita

I to the world am like a drop of water
That in the ocean seeks another drop,
Who, falling there to find his fellow forth,
Unseen, inquisitive, confounds himself

The Comedy of Errors, I.ii

 

[sweetnpetite]

Who are you when you are alone?

Perdita

I am a dreamer.


_____________
Sweet.

[SIZE=1/2]If you are a dreamer, come in
If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar
a hoper, a prayer, a magic bean buyer
If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire
For we have some flax golden tales to spin
Come in!
Come in!
--Shel Silverstein

[/SIZE]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Philosophically... "self-identity" is hard to even label. To say "I'm Joe" is to only be saying "I'm my name". To use references to ocupation, family, or interests aren't really a "who" so much as a "what".

So, essentially, self identity ends up--at least in my theory and school of thought on the matter--being the unpredicated "I".

To refer to your preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc. is to refer to things, essentially, not you--but extensions of you.

"I" without predicate is self. Its why computers, I think--despite the wealth of good selling science fiction and fantasy--are unlikely to ever deveop a sense of true self, independant of parts or programming.

 

[Remec]

Amici: I read an article with remarks by several directors on their productions of “Hamlet”. One in particular caused me to think further on something important to me—self identity. It is the thing I particularly look for in Shakespeare and nearly all the art works I love. I think it is the most elusive aspect of being a human person; sometimes I even think self-identity is an illusion.

So I quote the director below (my emphases) and wonder what some of you think. Not so much about his comments, but about your own identity—do you feel you have a grasp on it? how do you come about defining it? how important is it to you? how real is it to you?

Perdita

Yukio Ninagawa: This is my sixth Hamlet. I directed it first in the late 1970s when most Japanese productions were copies of English ones. I thought it was wrong to copy. I wanted to look at Hamlet as a universal text, and to make something that was visually different. The question the play asks is: "Who am I?" In Japanese theatre there is no drama to pursue that question, but a month ago, directing Oedipus Rex in Athens, I was sitting in the auditorium and thinking that all European theatre is about logical questioning, asking: "Where do I come from?"

The idea of defining your whole identity through logic doesn't exist in Japanese theatre; we're always too worried about confrontation.

And, while confrontation and conflict is the key basis to all drama, I think he's right in that much of the Western world's theatre seems to be explorations of confrontation/conflict within the context of self.

Who am I?
Why am I here?
What do I want/need?

Struggling such deceptively simple questions is the conflict that is at the core of so many works in so many genres. People are very good at wearing masks. Switching facades among all the different fronts we have to put on during a day is a skill too many of us have become too skilled at. At what point to we ever pull back and peel away the layers to reveal...even if just to ourselves...who we really are and what we're all about.

Which leads to another sort of struggle and quest.

Is there such a thing as a complete baseline? Are we not both the summation and the exclusion of all the experiences that have occurred within our lives? Family, friends, jobs, school, passing strangers, lovers, all the little would've/could've/should'ves that have ever passed through our little pocket of five senses...where do we really seperate them and their influence from us? Can we? Do we need to?

 

[Remec]

Remember the famous line from Alice in Wonderland?

"Who ARE you?

Who are YOU?

WHO are YOU?"

Well, who?

"I'm quite sure I haven't any idea. I've been so many different people today."


<g>
(Or words to that effect. And I might be remembering one of the various movie versions I've seen. Both Alice books are among my absolute favorites.)

 

[fogbank]

I'm not sure how to put it, but I'll try this. You need not believe in god or an after-life, but imagine that you have died and are presenting yourself to a being like 'God'. You have no body. Your family or friends do not matter now. Who or what are you? What makes you up? Who are you when you are alone?

That's a very good way of phrasing the problem.

I think that a subconscious, freudian part of my desire to be a novelist is to create a tangible representation of my self, even if that writing is not by any means a literal depiction of my self. For example, I have no idea who Vladimir Nabokov is, other than a rough outline of his personal history (and I seem to recall that he was an avid lepidopterist). But through reading his books, one gains something--again, not a literal interpretation of him, but an essence of... something... You want to know who Shakespeare is? Forget reading the biographies and watching film-adaptations of his life. Instead, watch his plays--does it really tell you who he is? No, probably not. But again, it's something, some essence. Was he, as a writer, seeking to come to an understanding of his own identity through his writing? Or was he merely writing for cash to pay for cheap prostitutes of either gender? I'd like to believe that both those are true; that, to a certain extent, in reading Hamlet, you're reading Shakespeare struggling with his own identity. And reading someone's attempts to understand their own identity is probably as close as we can ever come to really knowing that person. Whatever conclusions Hamlet reaches are immaterial in comparison to the way that Hamlet (and, hopefully, Shakespeare) seeks to achieve these answers.

Anyway, it's a very limited way of defining the self, as it really only applies to writers and other artists. But I really do believe that for myself, my writing and my desire for self-identity are linked, though probably in a very flawed way. And, I don't think that one can ever successfully know one's self through writing or through any other form of art. But I think it's a natural instinct (at least for me it is) to use art for the purpose of self-identification.

 

[Guest]

Philosophically... "self-identity" is hard to even label. To say "I'm Joe" is to only be saying "I'm my name". To use references to ocupation, family, or interests aren't really a "who" so much as a "what".
So, essentially, self identity ends up--at least in my theory and school of thought on the matter--being the unpredicated "I".
To refer to your preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc. is to refer to things, essentially, not you--but extensions of you.
"I" without predicate is self. Its why computers, I think--despite the wealth of good selling science fiction and fantasy--are unlikely to ever deveop a sense of true self, independant of parts or programming.

Joe, I can't believe you are being this simplistic. Are You not more than your "preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc.", or whoever others come to know? Where does your conscience or mind fit in here? Your emotions? Your happinesses and sorrows? Are they not inextricable from You? What do you mean when you refer to or think of yourself? Do you get what I'm saying? P.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Joe, I can't believe you are being this simplistic.

...hmm. My fear when posting that was that I was being too complex.

Are You not more than your "preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc.", or whoever others come to know? Where does your conscience or mind fit in here? Your emotions? Your happinesses and sorrows? Are they not inextricable from You? What do you mean when you refer to or think of yourself? Do you get what I'm saying? P.

I would say that I am less than those things. Essentially, my consciousness being a very smally scaled thing that, without predicate (preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc.) is ultimately left being only a referent for itself--"I".

When think of myself, I think of my occupation and my responsibilities--however, I have to acknowledge that I'm referring to things greater than simply "self". If I were happy or sad, those would be states that "self" is going through--things seperate from "self" that "self" was subjected to or engaged in.

Self is a very tiny, tiny thing I should think.

 

[Guest]

Self is a very tiny, tiny thing I should think.

Joe, that's a substantial thought, thanks. And I appreciate the clarifications.

I never think of my 'self' in terms of my job or my writing or being a mother or wife, etc. What's left? For me it's the thing I've always carried within my consciousness that seems to be a core of me (all that seems to make me up in the world). It's part of my memory, and yet conscious in this moment; it's my future too. It's from where I speak intimately to a few people, and at times to God.

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

...hmm. My fear when posting that was that I was being too complex.



I would say that I am less than those things. Essentially, my consciousness being a very smally scaled thing that, without predicate (preferences, likes and dislikes, history, body, etc.) is ultimately left being only a referent for itself--"I".

When think of myself, I think of my occupation and my responsibilities--however, I have to acknowledge that I'm referring to things greater than simply "self". If I were happy or sad, those would be states that "self" is going through--things seperate from "self" that "self" was subjected to or engaged in.

Self is a very tiny, tiny thing I should think.

That is not something I had thought of- and well worth pondering. Rather than self being all encompasing (the vastness of myself), perhaps it is you* stripped off all those things. But then what does that leave us as? Are we then all the same, or perhaps not a 'self' at all but a part of something bigger? Is there an indeviduality within the self? Or is the self sort of generic, like a starting point that we all begin at and build ourselves (personalities, roles, reputation ect) up from? Or are we in fact the builders over the foundation of ourselves, or is it some other person/force? Is this self a 'blank slate' or are there variations, differences from each self to the next? If the self is an essense, is it then a creative essence, or some other kind of essence? (intellectual, spiritual, animal, ect)




Hmm, so many more questions. What do you think Joe/others? (based on the small self theory) What are your answers to these qestions. (I have no answers yet, only musings.

[Another thought, maybe the self isn't stripped of those things, but distilled. That would be another 'small self' theory.]

This all seemed so simple before we started talking about it!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I feel very outside this debate.

Why? Because I've sort of HAD to have a strong knowledge of self in order to survive. Long long hours of deep introspection plus a deep time spent understanding exactly what lurks inside me, who are the mes that constitute me (this actually does make sense even if it looks like it doesn't).

So, this gives me a very good idea. At the same time though, I am still surprised sometimes. An extension I had not realized I had in a personality or the nature of my interpersonality interactions. It still fits and works, but sometimes adds an "ohhhh, so that's why" feeling to some moments.


Anyway, I think many people would do well to spend at least an hour a day in deep introspection. It cuts down on the feeling like Alice moments.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
That is not something I had thought of- and well worth pondering. Rather than self being all encompasing (the vastness of myself), perhaps it is you* stripped off all those things. But then what does that leave us as? Are we then all the same, or perhaps not a 'self' at all but a part of something bigger? Is there an indeviduality within the self? Or is the self sort of generic, like a starting point that we all begin at and build ourselves (personalities, roles, reputation ect) up from? Or are we in fact the builders over the foundation of ourselves, or is it some other person/force? Is this self a 'blank slate' or are there variations, differences from each self to the next? If the self is an essense, is it then a creative essence, or some other kind of essence? (intellectual, spiritual, animal, ect)

It is most likely, I should think, that we are all, when predication is gone, the same. Whether that means we're part of somethinf bigger or not, I couldn't say. I would think that the self would be a fairly blank slate. Personality being only an addition to self.

Another thought, maybe the self isn't stripped of those things, but distilled. That would be another 'small self' theory.

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Who or what are you? What makes you up? Who are you when you are alone?

Can these questions truly be answered in a lifetime? I'm not being facetious, just curious.
It seems that this has been a search for many people throughout life.
A thing that must be pondered.

or is the answer obvious and we fail to see it because we are looking too deeply?

I think I may have to meditate on this one.

Namaste

 

[doormouse]

Well, I'm me. Piss people off most of the time, but heh, that's me.

I like who I am, I love my kids, I love(d)(?) my partner.. well will again once he gets his sorry ass together *sigh*

My friends are my sole reason for coming here. I love my friends

 

[haldir]

I'm kind of nervous about dipping my toes into these murky waters, but the other posts on this thread have tempted me in - for better or worse.

I start from the biological perspective.

1. Each of us is a unique individual biologically.

2. In nature, many animals appear to have a concept of "self", possibly most evident in the great apes.

3. We all have a feeling of "self" that marks us out as different, an individual.

Is it too naive to think that this concept of "self" is real and is the result of our evolution, refining and distilling (I love that concept) it so that we feel it to be a big part of us?

 

[rgraham666]

Had to think about this for a bit.

My self identity can be summed up with two words; scholar and heretic.

Scholar because I love learning.

Heretic because I wonder about things that many people no longer wonder about. And that they believe should not be wondered about.

For me at least, self is no small thing. Since me has usually been all I had, it looms large. that might be just a matter of perspective considering how close my self is to me.