identity

[loveofreason]

Would you consider the search for a true identity to be one of an INTP's core obsessions?

 

[Agent Intellect]

yes. i think a good portion of my internal monologue, my thought processes, my head-in-the-clouds thinking is spent trying to uncover who I really am. the very fact that i took a personality test (more like 10, actually) that ended up leading me to this forum came from wanting to understand myself. the reason i keep posting on this board (debates are a great way to get to know oneself better, to understand where you are coming from and having your views challenged) and reading every other post that comes up is wanting to understand me (through means of understanding those most like me, i suppose). i take pretty much every personality, or IQ, or political spectrum test that anyone posts here on the never ending journey to find me. and yet none of it will ever truly satisfy me.

 

[Jennywocky]

Would you consider the search for a true identity to be one of an INTP's core obsessions?

Speaking solely from a theoretical POV, I think that INxPs both are concerned about identity. The INTP tends to seek identity in terms of knowing the "nature and essence" of things, much like LeGuin's concept of "Naming" in her Earthsea books. Everything has a true essence, and it's important to know the essence, aside from any surface facts; and it's almost an end in itself to know the essence.

[You see this in terms of "system work" too with INTPs: You have to clearly define the essence of the parts, and then their relationship with each other, to define the system and/or predict how the system will likely function.]

INFPs tend to personalize it more and think in terms of the "me" and not objectify it as readily. "Did I like that? What makes me more me? Who is me? Does that resonate with me? Did that make me more alive?"

Every person uses all functions, so there is an overlap of both styles in INxPs. Also, I suspect that INTPs who focus more on Ne and INxPs who have a strong Ni function will delve even more deeply into the identity question in the broad philosophical sense.

 

[Jordan~]

I think this is an area where I differ from most INTPs. I'm not really concerned with identity - I almost don't understand the concept. Perhaps this is a result of my having a very weak memory for personal events - I can never remember the events themselves, only the details; it's like learning history for me. I suppose it could be that this gives me a somewhat reduced sense of self. When I think, it seems more like thoughts are coming from nowhere and I notice them. I'm not really aware of the process at all, just its products. Like, in writing this, I'm just typing, not considering what to type - the words are coming out and I have a kind of precognition that I agree with them all. Anyway, as I said, I don't really get the whole "identity" thing. What is true identity? As far as I'm concerned, my identity is that I am me, and I can't see how one's understanding of it could go any deeper than that.

 

[Jennywocky]

... What is true identity? As far as I'm concerned, my identity is that I am me, and I can't see how one's understanding of it could go any deeper than that.

Well, xxTP tends to want to explore, NOT dictate. IOW, essence dictates behavior. xxTJ is the other way -- behavior is the most important, and it dictates essence as it goes.

So you can view identity either as something that already exists, and your job is to unearth it like a scientist uncovering a dinosaur skeletong. Or you can view it more existentially and say that we are a product of our choices and that we in essence "create" ourselves.

And the funny thing is, I think both of those ideas can be correct.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I coiuld have written exactly what Agent Intellect wrote. (hey! get outa my brain, there's not even room enough for me in here)
Identity has been the ground of most of my inquiries. "Who am I?" and "Why do I think/do this?" appears behind my thoughts and actions constantly.

Did the physical me come first and have I been building my essence ever since or am I an ever-evolving essence which inhabits a form relative to this Universe and specifically this planet?
Is the 'Me" and eternal existence manifesting in various forms at various times in various universes/dimensions?
Who is the me who is asking who I am?

...which inevitably leads to the question "Why am I here?" *sigh*

 

[Agent Intellect]

So you can view identity either as something that already exists, and your job is to unearth it like a scientist uncovering a dinosaur skeletong. Or you can view it more existentially and say that we are a product of our choices and that we in essence "create" ourselves.

And the funny thing is, I think both of those ideas can be correct.

thats an interesting thought. i don't know which one i think is more correct about myself. i guess one thing i do is over-analyze everything about me. i wish i could delve into my own subconscious like that movie The Cell and take a look around at who i am. i do think that a lot of who i am is based on who i make myself, but who i make myself into has a lot of subconscious decisions. thats the part i'm always trying to uncover. there are certain things that i just do naturally without taking any time to make a decision. thats one of the reasons i like MBTI so much, because it explores the basic areas of subconscious decision making (why am i so socially retarded? why does everything have to be analyzed and filtered through logic? why can't i just "feel" things like so many others?) and those are the parts i really want to unearth like a dinosaur bone.

 

[Jordan~]

So you can view identity either as something that already exists, and your job is to unearth it like a scientist uncovering a dinosaur skeletong. Or you can view it more existentially and say that we are a product of our choices and that we in essence "create" ourselves.

And the funny thing is, I think both of those ideas can be correct.

Maybe the concept of identity is inconsistent with my beliefs. I don't know, I just don't get it.

To AgentIntellect, my response to all of those questions would be "That's the way it turned out". Belief that the human brain is a complex machine perhaps annuls the concept of identity in a way, since to ask why certain things about ourselves are so is reduced to a matter of understanding the mechanism, much like asking why pulling a lever makes a bell ring at the other end.

 

[Ogion]

Hm. Either way 'identity' takes a whole lot of my thought ressources. I spend much on the quest for the reasons of why i do and think things, for example why i am that lazy and such. And it is sometimes a search for the exact description of a part of my identity. I mean, to lay it in thought clearly out in the open to get a grasp on it.
Actually it is too the attempt to not only get to know your own identity but to position it in midst of the other persons ones. To compare and see similarities and differences.

Ogion

 

[Agent Intellect]

Maybe the concept of identity is inconsistent with my beliefs. I don't know, I just don't get it.

To AgentIntellect, my response to all of those questions would be "That's the way it turned out". Belief that the human brain is a complex machine perhaps annuls the concept of identity in a way, since to ask why certain things about ourselves are so is reduced to a matter of understanding the mechanism, much like asking why pulling a lever makes a bell ring at the other end.

whats pulling the lever though? and why does it pull the certain levers that it does? the one doing the pulling would be the real me, i suppose. if the bell is supposed to represent my actions and behaviors, theres got to be something behind it all. if only i were religious, i could easily fill that gap with God or a soul or something.

 

[Jordan~]

Our environment is pulling the levers, and it's pulling them because its levers are being pulled, all the way back to the First Pulling, whatever may have done the pulling then. The levers are our senses, our brain is the mechanism, and the bell is our behaviour.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Our environment is pulling the levers, and it's pulling them because its levers are being pulled, all the way back to the First Pulling, whatever may have done the pulling then. The levers are our senses, our brain is the mechanism, and the bell is our behaviour.

so everything we do is simply a reaction to our environment?

 

[Ogion]

Well, here we are with the free will vs. determinism debate again. I guess everybody just has to find his/her own explanation which seems the most sensible or useful.

Ogion

 

[Jordan~]

so everything we do is simply a reaction to our environment?

I would argue that yes, it is. I am a hard determinist.

 

[Chimera]

(I'm just going to start typing and see where my mind takes me.)​

I've never quite understood the pursuit of finding my "identity" either...I am who I am, right here, right now. I know full well that my identity will most likely change through my life, whether through my own design or not. I do believe that there are some conscious decisions that we make, as human beings, that affect what our identity is. Repetition of certain decisions, such as choosing to pursue knowledge on our own or to remain ignorant, perhaps lead to a branding of traits such as curiosity into our identity. But since our environment is what gives us the chance to make these decisions, we are not totally able to create ourselves.
A little while ago I took a great interest into finding out why I am the way I am. I wanted to know exactly what had caused me to turn out this way. I have done an almost complete 180 from who I was as a child...if I had to take a guess at my MBTI as a child, it would probably be ENF[P/J].
I didn't get very many chances to decide things for myself as a child...I'm guessing that's how many peoples' childhoods were. To me, children seem to act somewhat alike...there aren't as many children who are introverted and independant as there are teenagers. Could that be because they haven't had the chance to think decisions through? They rely on others (their parents, teachers, etc) to make decisions for them. So many children tend to be extroverted, since they haven't had the oppurtunity to be independant. They just do what they're told because that's what they're raised to do.
Speaking of being raised to do things, children in different sorts of households and with parents with different raising methods could possibly be prone to different behaviours and different decisions, therefore changing the child's identity prematurely.
Anyway. As children get older, they are faced with more decisions, more chances to sculpt out who they are and how they wish to act. That's possibly why some teenagers are so confused and whatnot, apart from raging hormones. They suddenly have all this freedom, all this chance for independence, and they have no idea what they want to do.
Of course, after they get that first taste of freedom, they could just want to rebel against everything.
And then as soon as we have that independence, we can either stay as we are or sculpt ourselves into something completely new. That's what I've found, anyway.​

I don't know. There are so many reasons for why we are who we are, why we act how we act, etc.. There are so many things that affect us, and so many ways we affect ourselves, it would be almost impossible to pick apart everything and find a clear answer.​

EDIT;;
Reading over this, I don't know how much of it is actually on-topic...or is even coherent...​

...​

 

[Jordan~]

I would argue that our identity is entirely out of our hands. Every "decision" we make, such as whether to learn or remain ignorant, is as much of a decision as that of a switch to be closed when a button is pressed.

 

[Chimera]

Either way, there's equal proof supporting both theories.
Really the only way I can see to prove one over the other is to conduct an inhumane test on two babies: raise them with the exact same environment, discipline, education, et cetera, then present them with two identical situations in which they must make a choice.

. . .
Of course, our identities could be based off of chemical imbalances in the brain, which would support neither theory.


...​

 

[Jordan~]

They would need to be clones. The thing is, one theory assumes something, while the other doesn't. Determinism doesn't assume that there's some gland in the brain that magically allows it to defy causality, thus violating the laws of physics (the ones that apply to macroscopic objects, like, say, neurons, anyway). Libertarianism assumes that there is such a gland, or some other kind of undiscovered part, which somehow gives us the power to produce a causeless effect and be totally unique in the whole universe in that we have such a thing - most people would say that even the start of the universe, the "first cause", must have had a cause.
It's much like the theism/atheism debate: Somehow, although theism makes massive assumptions about the world by saying that all these weird, inexplicable things occur beyond the naturalistic and mechanical workings of the mundane world, it's the default stance; and atheists are somehow assuming something by saying that there isn't anything beyond the immediately evident. In the same way, those who assume that human beings defy the laws of physics have the default position, and people saying that we can't just make up rules that only apply to us are making the asusmptions. It's probably for the same reason, too. People are afraid of being without a god, and people are afraid of having no free will. Why isn't this the case with, say, unicorns? Why isn't the default position to believe in unicorns, for which no proof exists, and those who don't believe in unicorns are differing from the norm and being presumptuous in their knowledge of how the world works?
Anyway, yes. Find for me that thing that humans have that lets us defy causality and tell me how it works, and I'll consider that we might have free will.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Free will... lets try to avoid that, it's a slippery slope.

Back to identity,
Although it is common practice for me to analyse my own mind, actions and thus identity; the concept of defining it seems flawed. Identity is a dynamic thing, I'm different to who I was yesterday and I'll be further different tomorrow. In a few years most of my thoughts will have changed and there will be very few cells that haven't died and been replaced.

"Who am I" this question is best solved with the ideal of Zen; I can sit here for eternity and try observe a mirror from within itself (trying to examine my own mind) or I can walk the path of life. As I follow this (meta-physical) path I can observe the nature of myself, using my past and my potential future to define myself in the now.

Summary: Knowing oneself is a matter of being oneself as no amount of observation can solve an ever changing riddle. (since when am I so spiritual?)

 

[Jordan~]

But aren't the concepts of free will and identity inextricably intertwined and other long words? If there's no free will, we have as much identity as a stone; or, well, a... personality machine. Any that we experience is only an illusion, and it's not up to us what that mirage looks like, or how much of it we see.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

And who says a stone doesn’t have an identity?
Sculptures have identities, despite being inanimate.

You are delving into theory of minds and perception, a root issue of all arguments and a snare that derails many threads. If we want to discuss who we are, we must first accept that we exist; else this discussion is moot.

 

[Jordan~]

I accept our existence, I just question whether or not the concept of "identity" is real - and I still don't really understand it. What are we striving to understand? I get that the simple answer is "ourselves", but what does that even mean? I mean, is it possible not to understand yourself? Is it like how I've conditioned myself to think "Am I not?" instead of "Amn't I?" and now it's getting on my nerves?

 

[Ermine]

The question of identity is what keeps my mind going in a maddening circle like Jordan has just illustrated. When objectivity reigns, everything, even identity, loses its purpose.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I can sit here for eternity and try observe a mirror from within itself (trying to examine my own mind)

This was meant to illustrate that, like a mirror looking into a mirror causes no image to be seen. You can't see your own mind, inside your own mind.

The best you can do is observe what you do, then create an analogy based upon that; much like a painter doing a self portrait, without ever having seen hir own face.

 

[Agent Intellect]

even if you believe in determinism, aren't the causes and affects that led up to this point of who you are interesting? all of those causes affect your brain, which causes it to think and behave the way it does, which is what ends up making you you.

 

[Ermine]

This was meant to illustrate that, like a mirror looking into a mirror causes no image to be seen. You can't see your own mind, inside your own mind.

The best you can do is observe what you do, then create an analogy based upon that; much like a painter doing a self portrait, without ever having seen hir own face.

Sorry to deflate your analogy, but it is possible. You could determine what your face is like by feeling it. That and abstract self portraits of the mind. You can also ask other people what your face looks like. But an accurate realistic self portrait would be impossible.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Sorry to deflate your analogy, but it is possible. You could determine what your face is like by feeling it.

*Face-palm* it's an analogy; the face is a symbol for your mind, as is the canvas and the painter.

*sigh*
I've just realised the absurdity of trying to explain an impossible instance with logical analogies.

 

[spockguy]

"The self is our life's goal, for it is the completest expression of that fateful combination we call individuality"
I subscribe to this.

 

[eudemonia]

I agree with AI, determinism or free will, identity is a construct. How we elaborate this construct will be influenced by culture, language, experience. But the construct is not the essence (like the map is not the territory). So are we talking about the map or the territory?

I have always had a very strong sense of self (as opposed to identity). To me self is a visceral sensation; it feels like a pillar going right through the centre of my body. My beliefs have changed, my behaviour has changed and my emotoinal orientation towards people, things and events has changed, but I simply get a strong sense that that pillar has not changed. The essence of who I am hasn't changed.

You sometimes get this when older people say 'but I don't feel any different from when I was 20'. I often wonder about this because, whilst I have changed a lot in some ways, in other ways there is an essence of 'me'ness that everyone who has known me for some time would recognise. And I feel it like a physical presence within me.

However, some of the identity words I would use to describe me have changed. If asked to describe myself today I would use words like kind, tolerant, relaxed whereas before I would have used words like critical, intolerant and driven. Clearly something has changed within me but it just doesn't feel like the essence of me. I suppose some identity words I would use to describe the essence of me are independent, a lover of debate, critical of argument not of people, thoughtful - relating to ideas, desiring to help others, and sensitive to issues around power and justice.

EDIT: having said this I am having real problems around my avatar identity! I can't decide whether to go back to my original image or not. How weird this on-line identity stuff is

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I accept our existence, I just question whether or not the concept of "identity" is real - and I still don't really understand it. What are we striving to understand? I get that the simple answer is "ourselves", but what does that even mean? I mean, is it possible not to understand yourself? Is it like how I've conditioned myself to think "Am I not?" instead of "Amn't I?" and now it's getting on my nerves?

There is a concept of self, as eudemonia stated. This is the fact of 'I exist'.
Then there are sub-identities which make up a complete fluid sense of Identity, the 'Who I project', which is ones Consciousness. Consciousness implies 'consciousness of something'. Consciousness of Self, 'I exist'. Consciousness of not-Self, or Other, 'That which is not I, exists'.

This total sense of Identity is being added to constantly. Each sub-identity is a fluid construct projected in a certain situation. Ones work sub-identity. Ones socializing sub-identity. Ones intimate sub-identity.
They are 'masks' insofar as we project certain qualities in reference to certain situations. We have a 'database' of qualities from which we draw to create any given sub-indentity. Qualities are constantly being added or refined, as well as discarded and repressed; hence the fluidity of sub-identities and ones Identity. Not all qualities are exposed in each situation and there may be subtle shifts of qualities, and possibly sub-indentities, depending on the changes in a given situation.

There are qualities which are evident in almost all the sub-identies and qualities which may rarely be shown for a number of reasons such as childhood trauma, rejection syndromes or irrational fears.
There is no sub-identity which contains the entire database of qualities.
The Self contains all one's qualities, but the Identity, and therefore all sub-identities, may not be aware/conscious of the complete database of qualities. A quality may suddenly arise (erupt) through a sub-identity in a situation which one has not encountered before. This may surprise those within the situation and oneself as well. The phrase "I didn't know I had it in me." illustrates this.

The Identity cannot know the Self for the Identity is always 'outward facing'. It is a construct from the Self through the Consciousness for the primary purpose of projection and interaction with the not-Self, the Other.
The Identity cannot know itself, because it cannot focus upon itself. It can only assume what qualities are present at any given situation by the reflected actions of an Other.
The metaphorical phrases 'Can an eye see itself', 'Can the Sun shine upon itself' or 'Can a mirror reflect itself' illustrate this point.

 

[eudemonia]

Your post reminded me of an old concept I had forgotten. When my husband and I met he used to refer to me as the Wordsworthian egotistical sublime whilst he was the Keatsian chameleon poet. The following is a quote:

The phrase is first used by Keats in a letter to Richard Woodhouse, dated 27 Oct. 1818: “As to the poetical Character itself (I mean that sort of which, if I am any thing, I am a Member; that sort distinguished from the Wordsworthian or egotistical sublime; which is a thing per se and stands alone) it is not itself — it has no self — it is every thing and nothing —It has no character— it enjoys light and shade; it lives in gusto, be it foul or fair, high or low, rich or poor, mean or elevated — It has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen.” Keats defines his own poetic identity as a “chameleon poet” in direct contrast to Wordsworth whom he characterises as monumental and fixed, opposed to the labile. See also Keat’s letter of May 3rd 1818 to John Hamilton Reynolds in which he expresses his admiration for Wordsworth, but offers a similar point of difference between them, without using the phrase.

I wonder if there are people for whom the self is a powerful, constant presence in their life, whilst the sub identities are more evanascent, less real, less connected - Wordsworthian, this is how I feel. Whereas for the chameleon poets the sub identities are more real, more powerful and more defining. Perhaps more invasive of the self?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I think that, in general, people tend to grasp on to a few, say 5 or 6, sub-identities and restrict themselves to these in the majority of situations.
They would seek situations which would support, reinforce and not challenge these sub-identities. They would attempt to avoid situations in which they would have to call forth other sub-identities which they would not be as comfortable with and haven't exercised often.
They would seek out others who have similar sub-identities utilized, therefore further reinforcing theirs.
Anyone who has conflicting sub-identities or challenges the validity of theirs, would be avoided and/or considered inferior.
This could be a reason for cliques.

Someone like Wordsworth would consider the few chosen sub-identities as who he is ("This is my Identity. This is who I am.") and would project and reinforce these in almost every situation. His art would reflect this. He could be seen by others as egotistical because the array of qualities would be limited and easily definable in every situation. Others could predict that he would interact within a certain set of parameters.

Someone like Keats (...one of my favourite poets btw) would adapt sub-identities to a situation and possibly to the poetic state he might be in. He would not seem as egotistical ("I can't define my Identity precisely. I don't know who I am.") because the array of qualities projected would be more varied and complex. Predicting his interaction would be more difficult.

It would be interesting to compare the poetry of each to see if Wordsworth's is more ego-projected than Keats.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Side topic: I'm curious about Keats, what should I read of his? (Bonus points if you give me the direct link to full text. )

I read the Hyperion Cantos where Keats was talked about a lot. And there was a clone of Keats running around.

Would you consider the search for a true identity to be one of an INTP's core obsessions?

Yes.

 

[eudemonia]

Side topic: I'm curious about Keats, what should I read of his? (Bonus points if you give me the direct link to full text. )

I should ask EB or Lor for their views on this. Personally, I love Ode on a Grecian Urn, The Eve of St Agnes, Lamia, and To Autumn. A good link is: http://www.john-keats.com/.

I think that, in general, people tend to grasp on to a few, say 5 or 6, sub-identities and restrict themselves to these in the majority of situations.
They would seek situations which would support, reinforce and not challenge these sub-identities. They would attempt to avoid situations in which they would have to call forth other sub-identities which they would not be as comfortable with and haven't exercised often.
They would seek out others who have similar sub-identities utilized, therefore further reinforcing theirs.
Anyone who has conflicting sub-identities or challenges the validity of theirs, would be avoided and/or considered inferior.
This could be a reason for cliques.

Or loneliness. I identify with parts of this description except that you make it sound as if it is a failing. Maybe it is. I have not developed a huge range of identities and would prefer my own company to that of being with people who I sense trying to mould me into what is acceptable in their eyes - funny, light-hearted, materialistic, competitive. Its like the thread on small talk - I have developed the skill but it is not part of me. I feel suffocated when I have to do it. This does not mean that I only seek situations that reinforce and support my small number of identities. Chance would be a fine thing! I haven't found many others with similar sub-identities to my own. Though I must admit a 'eudemonia clique' sounds fun . I am tired of being an outsider and would love to find a place where I feel I fit.

I have tried to develop more sub identities but it never feels right. Nothing is ever fluid and I always feel as if I am hovering above myself when I do it. Maybe, theres a missing 'gland' in my brain, as Jordon put it - the 'sub-identity creation' gland - oh, and the gland that makes you feel at one with this sub identity Interesting.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I should ask EB or Lor for their views on this. Personally, I love Ode on a Grecian Urn, The Eve of St Agnes, Lamia, and To Autumn. A good link is: http://www.john-keats.com/.

His odes are wonderful. Lamia, La Belle Dame sans Merci, but also his letters contain his 'theory of negative capability' which I am still trying to digest.
Wikipedia has many links to his works and bio.

Or loneliness. I identify with parts of this description except that you make it sound as if it is a failing. Maybe it is.

Hmmm... rereading it, it does seem that way, though I am speaking mainly in a general hypothesis. One could chose those sub-identities which would solely benefit Mankind as a whole. This could be termed 'egotistical', yet one's efforts would be focused on others, not the self.

I have not developed a huge range of identities and would prefer my own company to that of being with people who I sense trying to mould me into what is acceptable in their eyes - funny, light-hearted, materialistic, competitive. Its like the thread on small talk - I have developed the skill but it is not part of me. I feel suffocated when I have to do it.

I would resemble this also, but I avoid small talk as much as humanly possible.

This does not mean that I only seek situations that reinforce and support my small number of identities.

Hmmm... I probably should have said 'would prefer to seek out'.

Chance would be a fine thing! I haven't found many others with similar sub-identities to my own. Though I must admit a 'eudemonia clique' sounds fun . I am tired of being an outsider and would love to find a place where I feel I fit.

he he... the eternal INTx dilemma.

I have tried to develop more sub identities but it never feels right. Nothing is ever fluid and I always feel as if I am hovering above myself when I do it. Maybe, theres a missing 'gland' in my brain, as Jordon put it - the 'sub-identity creation' gland - oh, and the gland that makes you feel at one with this sub identity Interesting.

Perhaps one creates sub-identities in view of a new situation using qualities one is already comfortable with along with new ones.
One's first encounter with school comes to mind.
Or one's first romantic 'crush'.

Perhaps we could design a 'sub-identity plug-in' which would come with preset sub-identities we could choose from and just select the appropriate, or non-appropriate, sub-identitiy per situation.

I can see it:
"Hi Boss!"
"Wait a minute. Where'd I put that damn subservient sub-identity?"

 

[eudemonia]

LOL that was really funny! My family think I'm mad sitting here giggling to myself

 

[Waterstiller]

I haven't read much of the other posts yet, but the answer to the OP is yes.

I feel like my own identity is just out of reach, and am wondering if it'll be this way forever. I've compiled a list of words that are descriptors of my identity. I feel like I can only add to this list. Not a single word can ever be taken away but it might be modified. The more I add to the list, the more I'm certain that I have a unique identity. But I'm always going to be adding to the list.

The notion that at the end, when I die, that God will give me an analysis of all my mistakes kind of intrigues me. That at the end I finally have an identity. I can't believe in this though, so I don't have much hope for the chase for my identity ever being resolved.

 

[Gorgrim]

all of these discussions are awesome. I feel like all of these things we're talking about are mostly correct. And are part of our lives on earth... But many times it is hitting a brick wall, you know this. But why did it actually come to happen this way.

Many people, as all of you, have smart things to say. but i want the truth. we problably all do.


It's safe to assume that the truth is shaped by the enviroment, or the enviroment shaped by the truth. Nobody knows.


Either way. I think sub-identities lie in us from childhood, but as one grew, the tendencies for certain sub-identities became clearer.

To me though, it is clear that Enviroment and Truth is in symbiosis. This is because when I saw myself as a child, I the enviroment shaped my preferences to deal with the enviroment itself. And the truth of my own identity shaped my enviroment.


But thus you will not know if enviroment came first, as you don't know if the truth of how babies come to life was there first. Or the truth of how the universe came to be.

thus, finding your indentity = finding the utmost truth. / finding what came first. The egg or the chicken, the enviroment or the truth.

Did that make any sense. And i realise this is thoughts and no answer to anything, If only I knew the truth =).

This issue has ofcourse bugged me ever since I began to think of it....


but, if identity = enviroment and vice versa, I strive to find my true identity. As for finding out who i am presently. It interests me alot, because I know what i am relative to the rest of my enviroment. My fellow humans, and my fellow entitites. that find their own preferences, trees, molecules, everything. And the closer I get to understanding my own self, I get closer to understand the enviroment self.

And thats my eternal quest. Atleast, when im beeing detached, and looking at it from this kind of emotion-less view.

I basically think that the brain and the universe will figure out itself, what preferent qualities of SUB-identities one should have to survive. for me, it was introverted-ness. extroverted is a developed sub-identity, i developed to function, but I realised i was fine with my introverted side.

Because my parents was laid back and I never had pressure to be extroverted that much. But when my Introverted first developed, my theory is that my brain figured it out as i was born. Before that, i don't think it had any preference at all.

Perhaps I didnt like what people did to me. Although i believe my parents were the best parents i could have, It's just a theory. I could have been thrown by up in the air and catched by my dad and then not have wanted to be outgoing to people...or it could have been me mimicking prefrences in others that i admired or looked up to. Who knows

 

[fullerene]

you would make a thread like this, lor... are you less alright than usual?

yes, I've been searching out an identity for quite a while... and I'm still not sure what one is. It's like the old bucket-stone philosophy dilemma of knowledge... if you know what you're looking for, don't you already know it? And if you don't, how can you ever find it just by looking? All in all I think I identify closest with (lol, as if this is a surprise anymore) AI, trying to dig deeper into the subconscious. Every time I have a dream that I remember and seems to relate to anything at all, I spend large chunks of time wondering about it, what's actually "me" beneath the most-obvious cultural influences... most often, parents. Typical of any question we don't know how to answer, though, it matters so little whether I actually find the answer (although I hope I do)--I think the things I learn along the way are more than worth it. It's tough for me to not see some kind of value in different experiences and discovering/coming up with methods for examining a problem these days.

I'm not sure whether I think I'll find a self seemingly apart from myself completely, a self of which my physical self is only a projection that spreads from it, or whether all I'm doing is finding the cultural influences that shaped me and dragging them out into the light... but I figure learning anything is, at least, worth something.... or is it? Often I wonder whether seeking out "what is" is just our way of wasting our time away, just like other people may waste them looking for relationships or trying to make money... is that a cultural influence on my mind, a physical one, or reason to think there's another source of knowledge that bypasses the stone-bucket dilemma completely?

Mildly frustrating... impossible to make conversation out of with other people... but I can't imagine you're any worse off seeking a sense of identity, and it passes the time--so I do.

 

[loveofreason]

How reassuring - we're all lost!

you would make a thread like this, lor... are you less alright than usual?

I have two settings, bad or worse. Three if you count delusional.

I'm interested that this identity quest is also an INFP pursuit. I think of my searching as an obsession with the essence of things; with finally having a name to name them by. I like to imagine that we all may have secret true names. If such a thing exists then that is what I seek.

And that inner sense Eudemonia mentions, I'm aware of that too, but it goes hand in hand with a wide range of sub-identities. Too often one gets mistaken for the role they portray. Some other gets obssessed with the character, mistaking innately mutable behaviour for a pliant nature. Woe unto them when they eventually discover the immutable core.

Sub-identities are like holidays. Suck if you actually live there full time. There's some 'place' called home: that unchanging sense, that "pillar". If I could devote my life to nothing but, then I suspect I would be pleased to spend it all in pursuit of the name of this thing that I am.

It is an ultimately unsatisfying way to go about it, but I take all those personality tests too. Hoping a test is an objective instrument that can pierce the many guises? Why have a list of attributes when you can have a power-drenched name?

*sigh*

I have been accused of navel-gazing, as though it were a crime.

Damn but 'real' life interferes!

 

[fullerene]

mm... I'd almost consider a pack of INTPs (if you ever really let them get to know you) more objective than an internet personality test, if that's your goal. Probably a good deal more accurate and insightful, too.

 

[Agent Intellect]

every test, every thought experiment, every description of oneself only seems to chisel away at the surface of who you actually are. its like being able to get closer and closer to "you" but never really being able to get a handle on it. its like a subatomic particle in an enclosed area, the closer you focus into it, the more it begins to fluctuate and it still remains uncertain, impossible to get a completely accurate reading of what it really is.

 

[Weliddryn]

I have decided that I will never fully understand myself, after taking the MBTI test about twenty times and every time getting INTP. INTP does not describe me completely, and there are so many more interesting topics than myself. I still wonder, but, at least for now, I've put those interests on a shelf.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

This is strange. Ever since I "found myself" when I was around 10, I have always known exactly who I am. The real issue is coming to terms with that identity...

 

[Ermine]

every test, every thought experiment, every description of oneself only seems to chisel away at the surface of who you actually are. its like being able to get closer and closer to "you" but never really being able to get a handle on it. its like a subatomic particle in an enclosed area, the closer you focus into it, the more it begins to fluctuate and it still remains uncertain, impossible to get a completely accurate reading of what it really is.

Agreed. I've come to terms with the part of myself that's identified by the MBTI. But as soon as I delve beneath that part of me, I'm lost and confronting one contradiction after another.

 

[CorvusCorruptus]

"

every test, every thought experiment, every description of oneself only seems to chisel away at the surface of who you actually are. its like being able to get closer and closer to "you" but never really being able to get a handle on it. its like a subatomic particle in an enclosed area, the closer you focus into it, the more it begins to fluctuate and it still remains uncertain, impossible to get a completely accurate reading of what it really is.

This reminds me of a Trickster story I once read - "Trickster meets the would-be intellectuals"

Inside the lodge, Naanabozho saw a bunch of people sitting around a very large table and he tried to get closer to see what good things they had to eat. But when he finally squeezed his way up close enough to see, he saw nothing but a bunch of papers before each one. Naanabozho, disgusted with their strange appetites, was about to leave and continue his search for real food, but the lace of one of his new shoes caught on a nail and the shoe pulled off his foot.
Then it happened, one of the people recognized him, and before Naanabozho could even think up a good story to tell, he found himself on the center of the table, being examined and picked apart by the group of intellectuals. Poor Naanabozho! He lay there dazed, each of his parts being held up and stretched all out of proportion by members of the group. He thought this was truly the end of him and his magic this time.
Then a funny thing happened. The men and women became hypnotized by their own voices. Soon Naanabozho’s parts lay abandoned and scattered about the table, and the people seemed to have forgotten him, so involved were they in making their fancy words better and louder than those of all the other intellectuals. So Naanabozho quietly shaped the pieces of paper to look like his different parts, then, gathering himself together as best he could, he crawled out of there.
When he was putting his foot back on, he remembered the deal he had made with the kids outside. So he climbed out of a window and off he went thinking to himself, “If only I can find someone who will trade me something good to eat for this shirt and these shoes…”
And that’s why intellectuals even today have only words on paper while the real Trickster is still wandering about out there – laughing!

 

[Sapphire Harp]

I'm interested that this identity quest is also an INFP pursuit. I think of my searching as an obsession with the essence of things; with finally having a name to name them by. I like to imagine that we all may have secret true names. If such a thing exists then that is what I seek.

To throw a different light and angle on this - the conversation (Lor's statement here, in particular) make me think of the daimons from the Golden Compass.

For those of you who aren't familiar, every person in that world has a familiar animal of some sort. It's physical and intelligent and it's part of their personality and soul. When the people are kids, their daimon can change shape to whatever animal they want to be, but when the person matures - their daimon changes into a single animal and stays that way for the rest of their life. What animal it becomes is an embodiment of what they are...

It's not much good for those who haven't read it, but it might give some new thoughts to those who have...
​

 

[saffyangelis]

I took a quiz, and apparently my Daemon's called Brynn, and he's a sparrow.

 

[Madoness]

Would you consider the search for a true identity to be one of an INTP's core obsessions?

Yeah, but it isn't just the search of myself, but the search of all around us. As I've found out, it isn't really possible, as we look some kind of rogic, rationality for the behaviour of people, the world, but not all of us act logically but act out of emotion, this is the point we see as the world is crashing on us as we can not figure out the problem.
I want to find out how the "system" works and why it works that way, but my path is full of obstacles that can not fit into logic in any way. This is our handicap we can not overcome.

 

[sagewolf]

I actually feel like i have a good grip on who I am-- on that pillar of self at the centre of my being. It's how I fit into the world that I have trouble with, and that's probably just as important an aspect of my 'identity' as my self is. I mean, the 'me' that'll be in college a year from now is going to be a different 'me' to the person who's sitting in her room in her parents' house now. Apart from that, on a wider scale, I know what I want to do and accomplish, but I don't know if I have any idea how to accomplish that; in other moments I wonder if I'm even capable of doing so.

The pillar's stable but the building around it feels like it's made from wet sand.