a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It is impossible to reduce an individual to a part of a group on the one hand, then consider that group an individual on the other. Groups are always
composed of individuals. This also applies to the common notions of identity in their typical, post-modern, “social” sense. These types of
identities are construed, whether chosen for oneself or bestowed on others, and never actual. They are always after the fact.
Have you ever heard of systems theory? Or mathematics for that matter? What you seem to be claiming here, if I'm reading you rightly, is that there is
no stability to personality.
If that is what you are claiming, the vast majority of "mind" scientists - neuroscientists, psychologists and developmental psychologists - would
dispute that on soli evidence.
D'arcy Thompson recognized over a hundred years ago that the human body was "mathematizable". The British neurologist John Hughlings Jackson even
figured out a notion which is a cornerstone of modern neuroscientific thinking - and of course, builds off from Darwin's theory of evolution - that
the more external parts of the human brain are more 'recent' in its evolutionary origin, whereas more inner parts, especially the brainstem, are
increasingly older. He also posited, quite logically, that when metabolically taxed, the human brain undergoes what he termed "dissolution": a
regression of ontological functioning from an attractor organized by the cortex, to an attractor organized by the brainstem/midbrain.
I am making a case for cold hard nominalism where identities are concerned.
All of my threads at ATS disprove this claim of yours. Evolution is real. Our brain-mind is a homeostat: which means each state of being we embody is
From my perspective, you are fighting within yourself to keep this primitive illusion alive, mostly because your brain-mind compels you from a deeper
logic than you are willing to recognize.
As a system, all of your identities, or "self-states". are configured around an emotion: either love or fear. If the former, 'safety' is the general
condition which allows a more energetic organization of the mind-brain. The solitary nucleus - a brainstem nucleus - actually controls the vagal
systems (and the sinoatrial node) and also directly enervates the very heart of the amygdala: the central amygdaloid nucleus.
All of the evidence could not be any clearer - so long as you aren't religiously committed to keeping yourself ignorant lest you experience the
consequences of cognitive dissonance for mental functioning.
Myth. In short. Myth is what you guys are doing, and keep doing, and it is all unnecessary. None of this needs to be seen this way; nor is it
impossible for a human being to change, and accept themselves in their wholeness, but with a new orientation to action: to promote stability.
In my opinion, you cannot think clearly at a metaphysical level if you don't accept the ontological primacy of developmental processes. If you don't
think watching and learning about the cause and effect processes of human interaction doesn't matter, there is an unconscious self-state 'driving' you
towards a more affectively "palatable" perspective.
Anybody with any sort of psychodynamic knowledge, however, can see whats really happening. Fear (an abstract potential related to self-preservation)
allows the most dominate self states (identities) correlated with real life situations in the external world, to determine the conscious state of the
thinker. The thinker is 'guided' by affective tones triggered by interfacing with a concept. In this way, the mind is 'organized' from the bottom-up,
according to fear dynamics (objects which threaten) and idealization dynamics (which direct the mind elsewhere, thereby protecting the self from
experiencing the conceptual conflict between its present behavior and the fact that a host of past traumas anchor the mind to think in certain ways).
I hate to burst your bubble, but it's a bit too much for me to watch - with the 'echo chamber effect' of hearing only what you want to hear, ignoring
the plausibility of seeing your behavior as stemming from fear, and not a "self-controlled" knowledge of something "higher", as the pretentious
idealization systems compel the thinker to believe.
So, no, sorry - as to the issue of whether or not identities 'exist'. We have many of them. For as many contexts and situations that we have gone
through in our life, those 'repeating' ones have created and evolved within us all sorts of identity states and identity states which 'bridge' between
other identity states.
Ain't that the whole idea of the 'tarot' deck? Isn't this a fundamental knowledge of the occult? That humans have 'different ways of being', depending
on the motivational system in play - and thus, the context the person is in?