dialogue on the language of identity

flora and fauna of Mullum 019

flora and fauna of Mullum 019 (Photo credit: YAZMDG 12,000 images)

Dialogue on the language of identity

JR, what if someone refuses to play any role, what so ever. What if they hold on to the perception of idealization as inauthentic (Purposefully seeking out scenarios that fulfill an idealization is not authentic.), and having a specific expectation/standard of life then become recluse and withdraw from the world. What if they are so disgusted by the dynamics of life, that they refuse to participate…?

English: What a smiley looks like when thinkin...

English: What a smiley looks like when thinking of a disgusting level mushroom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Hi. Thank you for your correspondence. I trust that my reply will be of interest and value to you.

Concepts like refusal or disgust are not as simple as the practical issues of choosing to spend time alone or choosing to initiate youtube correspondence like this or choosing to plan an event and invite people or whatever else. If there are 59 things that I did not do today, I could list another 724, but why bother?

I could explain to you my reasons for not doing them, but if I shared those ideas with you, then that would be me doing sharing with you. I can explore ideas and share them, perhaps very selectively and cautiously. Maybe I like having a lot of time to write and edit before I share.

I have found a certain amount of private time for introspection to be attractive and valuable. With that preference for a certain amount of private time in mind, I could even call “recluse” a role, as well as “rebel” or “reject” or “critic” or “outsider.” We could even use adjectives instead of nouns, like “introspective” or “nerdy” or “spiritual” or “deep” or “contemplative.” Playing with words would be the “function” of exploring language, right?

So, I value private introspection in to psycho-linguistics. Yet, I also have found certain particular social opportunities attractive and valuable, and of course those change over time like from age 10 to age 20 to age 30, right?


introspection (Photo credit: TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³)

When I value more private introspection, I may discover opportunities for that, including withdrawing or pushing away. When I value more socializing, I may discover opportunities for that.

In sharing my own introspection with others who are interested in introspection (or might be), that is what might be called alert interaction. Clearly, there is interaction in “alert interaction.” Also, there is a recurring alertness to introspection and subjectivity. We could even presume to call that alertness “maturity,” though other people might call it very different things or nothing at all.

So, regarding the dynamics of life, am I life? Yes, and you are life, too. The “dynamics of life” could reference a few specific social dynamics or the introspective study of language or the sciences of physiology and nutrition and biology and anthropology.


Disgusting (Photo credit: Jsome1)

As for disgust, anyone experiencing disgust for some particular alternative would tend to behave with refusal and withdrawal, which can be followed by new initiatives. Also, resentment can be held as a grudge or, perhaps in a trusted private confidentiality, vulnerability can be explored along with rage and grief and fear and so on- and I propose that those are all valid patterns or else neuro-chemical biology would not produce the behavior patterns to which we attach those various labels..

Stewie Griffin

Stewie Griffin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is also the experience of linguistic complexities like “I’m disgusted with my self.” It is really kind of a weird thing to say- even funny. Imagine your favorite cartoon character saying it: “I’m just so disgusted with myself!” I chose the character from Family Guy named Stewie: “Oh dear me, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!” That also reminds me of C3PO from Star Wars: “Oh dear, Master Luke, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!”
Anyway, things happen that I may find disgusting or that others may find disgusting (which typically means terrifying with an extra element of paranoia and thus rejection). That is what disgust is like. While no one may seek out to be disgusted, it is rather natural to eventually experience disgust for a variety of things, perhaps even one’s own past or one’s story about how one should have been/ should not have been….

To J.R.:

I read your reply numerous times, and I’m not sure I still understand what you mean with all that you have written.

I’ll try to address what I did understand or what is relative (within my understanding) to the comment I posted.

If fulfilling a role is made aware (like being the compassionate, forgiving mother; like you stated) and is then purposefully acted against, what would that be? And is it possible to refuse to act out not just a single role, but any and all roles? Is it possible by doing so to become a “non” person? In general, is it possible to lose your identity?

Also, I’ve spent alot of time w/ introspection. When I say “the dynamics of life” I am really trying to summarize a whole of categorical information, stemming from philosophical, sociological, psychological, biological and theological roots.
It is a view based on a collection of my ideas (via my experience and understanding) that I’ve created.
It’s largely just my understanding of our human nature, and I’ve really been able to break it down into fragments of its former idealized state.

This nihilistic, negative world view has left me in a severe, severe depression, unable to cope with the world I am trapped in.
I am crippled by so many different avenues of thought, it’s completely overwhelming. It seems the more I search for “the truth” the more lost I become. The “truth” is turning very ugly, and it is causing me to retreat from the battlefields of life and find something that is worth the battle.

I was raised Catholic, so my religious dogmas play a huge part in this search for truth. I am no longer practicing. I just feel completely lost in this primal, dog eat dog world. I question EVERYTHING. I question where our human nature comes from, I question where will comes from, I question the reason to fight for values, I question even what are values? I question our opportunistic nature, and why people are so greedy and why people only want to benefit themselves. Why the ugliness in life? Where is the beauty that I supposedly hear about, all I see is a mask… and the ugliness lies beneath, life is a rotting corpse with make-up on to me.

Do I make any sense? I must have written this last part just to humor myself and see if I can even put my madness into some kind of existence outside my own brain.

This is my sisters account, I am her older brother… for whatever that is worth… it’s fair to let you know that.

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and...

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and Chris; Front: Brian and Stewie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Let’s start simple. In language, there can be a process of identifying: like the terms “me, us, she, he, good boy, student, sister, mother, the first employee to arrive on time, a tree branch, front of my hand, back of my hand. Americans, intelligent mammals, the dead plant, that chair, this computer.” That process of identifying can create identities.

Those dividings in language are not fundamental. There is no fundamental boundary between Americans and Europeans or between the front of my hand and the back of my hand. All categorical isolating is linguistic and merely proclaimed or declared.

So, identifying an isolated me is possible and in the absence of identifying an isolated me, there is no neuro-linguistic isolating of a “me.” Person means a persona or a personality or a character or a role or a linguistic identifying.

I can say, “hey you refuse to be a 7 year-old dog.” That implies two roles: the one refusing and the one declaring that the other is refusing. Neither roles are anything but roles. All roles are idealisms.

Words only categorize reality as in organize perception of reality and isolating of linguistic identifyings. Words do not alter reality. Consider: “I declare that you are a year-old dog now.” Did that change anything about you or me or anything else? It is just the voicing of a character of silliness and relaxation.

Anyway, I just read your comment about being trapped. You can trap yourself with patterns of language, but keep in mind that “you” are just a pattern in language. Your worldview is just a habit of linguistic organizing. If it does not serve you, then find other patterns of linguistic organizing. Or, question the existence of the “you” who could be trapped or not or think of it.

“I am trapped by _______.” That is a declaration. “I am seeking to get out of the trap of _____ by ___________.” That is actually the same declaration, just with more complexity and extra linguistic presumptions (ideals, beliefs).

“I am trapped by my words.” “I should not be trapped.” “I am a trap made out of words.” “I am a trap for words and I reflexively reject some words and hang on to others.”

Depression and claiming to be trapped are a coping mechanism involving fear or terror. However, the world that you view or perceive is a product or projection of a presumptive worldview or perspective or linguistic organizing.

It is fine to be afraid of the world and resentful and so on. It is also fine to organize the world in some other way or none at all.

Depression is like when energy has been exhausted with a coping mechanism that is not very efficient or functional. Relax. You do not need to anxiously find another coping mechanism. You have other emotional responses and you will spontaneously experience others as you relax from suppressing or repressing or depressing them. That tension (such as perfectionism) is exhausting to maintain, so I invite you to make fun of it.

You are the truth. Stop searching for it. However, without distress, you may explore whatever you explore. Just beware of categorizing lots of things as “not the truth.” That rejecting is optional.

Santa Claus is a true myth. Inaccurate scientific models are true scientific models. Language is only a portion of reality. Language may be the absolute least rewarding part of reality to explore if one is interested in truth.

However, if one is interested in the truth of language, then one will find the truth about lying and misinterpretation and confusion and presumption and pretense. Recognizing the truth of what language is could bring an end to misconception about a self-image. Self-images are in fact only ideals or images of a self constructed through linguistic identifying.
Also, the truth of language is very threatening to the identity of being trapped in a depression because language is the realm of humor and irony and parody and satire, and those patterns of coping can be very disruptive to a perfectionist depression.

Why shouldn’t people want to benefit themselves (or their offspring, clan, tribe, company, nation, etc)? Even “what is beneficial” and “what is detrimental” are just labels in language.

Beware of humoring yourself and sharing your madness. You may find that it is mad as in crazy hilarious rather than mad as in angry. Also, beware of paranoia and anxiety. (That was a joke.)

Also, I should let you know that this is not my account but my prophet’s account. I am God Almighty, but I have access to all of the internet and beyond, and, technically speaking, I could identify any account that I like as mine because I am the one who declared things in to being through speaking, who invents words, who influences perception, who creates worlds of world views, and sometimes pretends not to be God, you know, just to see how long I can go without noticing, like in a staring contest waiting for one of my creations to blink and lose the game.

I am the front of your hand battling against the back of your hand. I am the internal dilemma going on in exactly 739 brain cells that do not now the difference between their own mitochondria and a hole in the ground.

One last thing: I was raised human, by the way, so I can relate to everything that you’ve been saying. 😉

To J.R.

So “I” am only a pattern of words?

I don’t mean to negate from all that you have written, which is fantastic… I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this shit so I can finally move on with my/this life.

J.R. replies:

You are life. You cannot “get on with your life.”

“Your life” is only a pattern of two words. Forget about the first word “your” and notice how life is already getting on with or without anyone categorizing some of it as “mine” or “not mine.”

“This life” is just happening. There is nothing to be done about it and perhaps no one to do nothing about it.

This life has been happening already and is still happening now and might even continue happening. Part of this life is the little shapes on this screen that can be labeled “words of the English language.”

What is the barrier between “this life” and these little word shapes? What is the boundary between “this life” and the quotation marks around “this life?” There no boundary between a boundary that only exists in language and another boundary that only exists in language. There is just language happening, along with anything else.

“I think, therefore I am” is about identity. It could be rephrased as “As I speak, that speaking can construct an image of who I am and how life is FOR ME.”

To J.R.:

….I appreciate your responses, you have some great insight… I am unable to completely understand, but I’m sure I would if I spent some time learning your views on things.

J.R. replies:

The mind cannot escape from the mind. The mind is just some momentum in language, such as “but I am unable to due to….”

What you wrote is not actually the world. That is a bunch of words about a world that you claim as “your life.” However, you can certainly claim that your words about the world are the only world and that some particular pattern of organizing perception and identifying the world is the only one possible. That’s arrogantly naive, but not uncommon.

We could talk on skype (or just by phone). However, I may question your ideal that you question everything. You only question in the ways that sustain the experience you have now.

There may be something to admit, like to share with me or someone else, about how creating some sort of role of misery or paralysis was valuable for you. It’s just a role.

You apparently like it better than some other role that you were fleeing from and the role you created was your preference (or “life’s preference”). So be it. However, you might recognize that you are interested in other patterns, other roles, other identities. As you explore, even cautiously and cynically, you risk finding a new experience that will confront you with the possibility of sacrificing your misery.

You cannot take it with you to heaven. You cannot even go to heaven. However, if you disappear, then heaven may be recognized as already present.

fallow stag ldr

fallow stag ldr (Photo credit: LHG Creative Photography)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “dialogue on the language of identity”

  1. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay Says:

    You may also consider these related articles:
    http://ssrn.com/abstract=2015334, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019504,

  2. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay Says:

    What does it mean by the word “our”?
    The author had anticipated the incidence of the secret moments of eco-enemy primitive accumulation and thus he acted with his theoretical weapons before Singur-Nandigram incidences in West Bengal, India. He started with these two quotations from Karl Marx:

    “From the standpoint of higher economic form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe, its usufractuaries, and like bona partes familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.”–Karl Marx, 1894/1959: 776

    “The person, who by virtue of the title of portion of the globe has become the proprietor of these natural objects will wrest these surplus-profit from functioning capital in the form of rent.” –Karl Marx, 1894/1959: 773

    Then he switched over to the concept of svatva as proposed by Kana Raghunatha (15th C A.D.) He argued in his padarthatatvanirupanam—

    “ Another new category is possessedness (svatva).
    Objection: That is nothing but being fit for use as one wishes.
    Answer: Not precisely, for one may use food belonging to others.
    Objector: One is not enjoined not to eat food belonging to others.
    Raghunatha: You see, you must already understand possessedness in order understand such an injunction. Possessedness is a property that belongs to people when they receive gifts and that they lose when they give things away.”

    To summarize, svatva as a category does not depend on the exchange value as ascribed by the market economy, therefore (s)talker was paraphrasing “fit for use” (viniyogayogyata) as “use value” and it eradicates the self-other differences in the context of my-ness.
    He was then not talking about I-dentity or I-ness, but on my-dentity or my-ness, i.e., what “I” possesses or what are (being) belonged to me—my ownership, endowment, possessed-ness or rather entitlement or in other word, private property. Following navyanaiyayika term, one may call this category as svatva. Thus this project was a psychoanalytic shift from the individual ego to the possession of ego as imagined and symbolized within certain domain order.

    This paper starts with some problematic questions:
    • Does “I” possess something or something is imposed upon my I-dentity or as my “own” by following certain rules of socio-cultural or politico-economic legitimacy?
    • As a homo sapiens, except my supposed genetic endowment, do I have something as my “own”? Do I have my ownership of four Ls: Land, Language, labour and Love in the context or locus of this planet or universe ?

    Then what is about legal entitlement as proposed by Amartya Sen (1981: 1-2)? An entitlement relation applied to ownership connects one set of ownerships to another through certain rules of legitimacy. It is a recursive relation and process of connecting is repeated.”

    Amartya Sen then cited an example of private ownership from the market economy and elaborated an exchange of commodity by using money, which is mere a signifier that metaphysically makes unequal as equal and I really do not know the sufficient and necessary conditions behind such equation of exchange. Without questioning the stipulated value ascribed to a currency note, Sen put “etc.” at the beginning of the exchange process. The origin of entitlement starts with “etc.”, i.e. “ityadi” (iti adi, iti means the “end of a process or state or an event”, on the other hand adi means the “origin”) is put at the “adi” or origin. This is the paradox of his framework as it leads to fallacy of infinite regress.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Hi Debaprasad,

      Your comment is not directly related to the original focus of this post- on a tangent. The arising of an identity in language is more fundamental and simple than any of the more intricate and complex issues you reference. A linguistic identity could be “humanity” or “the legitimate government” or “me” or “my legal name” or “the Microsoft corporation.”

      The words law and legal and language and logic and Logos all reference back toward the sanskrit term “yoga.” I use many terms in the tradition of jnana/dhyana/zen, anatma, advaita,

      I am not directly addressing the issues you raised and you were not directly addressing the issues I raised. Until the functioning of language is clear, so much of intellectual speculation is like building a huge tower without a solid foundation. If there is a false presumption at the base of your linguistic constructions, then there will be no satisfying answers to a question based on false presumption, such as “what is the product of multiplying too and for?” By the way, the correct mathematical answer is not ate.

  3. livvy1234 Says:

    Do not avoid contact with suffering or close your eyes before sufferin. Do not lose awareness of the existence of suffering in the life of the world. (Thich Nhat Hanh)

    I, too, get disgusted with the violence, greed, and apathy of the “world.” Learning to be the lotus flower that blooms in the mud is hard work. It requires alot of introspection…and vigorous self honesty.

    “All my ancient twisted karma,
    From beginningless greed, hate and delusion,
    Born through body speech and mind,
    I now fully avow”

    This is often recited before reciting the precepts in zen. Zen is my refuge. When I say I take refuge, I mean, I return again and again to zen mind…what is happening in this precise increment of time.

    Repeatedly, I fall off the wagon. Learning to balance wisdom and compassion for my inside world and outside world as One. We may not believe in war, but war is in us. (the collective anger)

    How do we carry the suffering of the world? How do we repent to collective burden of that damage? How do we change the world? By living mindfully one second at a time…as best we can.

    I enjoy reading your blog. You put alot of thought and time into it.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you. Beware of subtle forms of anxiety (suffering), which only arises from confusion (maya). Beyond beliefs like “the best we can” is zen mind. Beyond words like “zen mind” is no one, no refuge, no zen, no world, no blog, no time, no beyond.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: