posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:20 PM
lol.... I just stumbled upon this.
I do many things, all of which I do not truly identify myself as. When I say I 'am' a student I do not mean that a student is essence of my being,
but in our language the verb 'to be' is being misused.
Westerners have a problem by identifying living objects by what they do. If one asked their father 'who' they are the response would be a list of
things that one's father does and/or situations in the fathers life.
My father, when asked this question responds as such...
I am a loving father of four
I am a Professor
I am a loving husband
I am a registered independent
I am a white middle aged man
Does this truly capture the essence of my father? I think not, I think it merely translates a bunch of his actions and situations into words.
We identify objects in this world by what we perceive them. This is Korzybski's 'is of identity'. To say that "this acorn is brown" is more
accurately portrayed as 'the acorn seems to be brown in accordance with the perception of the acorn by my own eyes'.
Another problem I see with written and spoken language is that people prefer to say that they are a multi-faceted individual. Saying that the
cumulation of all that they do, and all the situations in their life make up the mosaic that 'is' the person.
So... When I am asked "Who are you?" I can merely state Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. This is the only complete statement about myself
that does not deny my potential.