Puppeteer

[Cognisant]

Title is a reference to "Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society", don't fret if you can't figure out how the rest of this relates to that movie, the connection is tenuous at best.

The self is comprised of two parts, the inherent self of the present moment and the abstract "immortal" self that is one's identity, the inherent self is constantly changing therefore cannot be immortal (immortality being a state of consistency, which isn't necessarily everlasting), likewise the abstract self cannot be inherent because, reasons.

Now we have bodies for doing and minds for thinking so it is my opinion that we ought to define ourselves by whatever purposes we choose to devote our time to, as that is how we simultaneously express and change ourselves, which given the inconsistency of the inherent self and the contrivence of the abstract self makes it the most valid possible definition of self.

Getting to the point of all this, living for a purpose can be both means and end simultaneously as living for a purpose makes that purpose your identity while that purpose also gives your identity meaning.

So if I ask you "who are you" or to phrase it more accurately "what is your purpose" do you have an answer? You may exist but until you can answer that question does that existence, your identity, does it meaning anything?

It's the difference between being someone and to be somebody.

 

[Black Rose]

Anything is only a sub goal without companionship. Mammals are meant to be in collective society's.

 

[kvothe27]

^agreed

How other people react to a person's chosen purpose can greatly impact how one's self-image is defined. As social creatures, it can be difficult to do as you said without the input of others. The input of others can preclude, or, at least, thwart self-definition in terms of a chosen purpose, if the input of others is honest and reasonable.

For example, if one's purpose is to be a famous rockstar, and the people necessary to make him one do not honestly view him as such (and he doesn't have any talent), this person's defined purpose, and resulting purpose-defined identity, is rendered inaccurate. This person will likely live an unfulfilled life, and this will effect his identity. Indeed, such characters tend to be viewed as pathetic, and such views have an effect on people. This doesn't mean his identity doesn't have meaning, but is it the kind of meaning most people can handle while remaining psychologically healthy? Moreover, how long would he be able to maintain this purpose-defined identity?

 

[Cognisant]

Being a famous rockstar is not a purpose, becoming a famous rockstar or playing awesome music is a purpose, simply being a famous rockstar is trivial because it's something ascribed to you as opposed to something that you're actually doing (unless it is actually your job, that you do).

Stop thinking in terms of what other people think of you and ask instead what you think of yourself, if you can't do that, well that's just sad.

 

[Cognisant]

Being famous is not something someone can directly work towards and for that reason it's quite right to say seeking fame for its own sake is a fool's pursuit, but if someone wants to play music they can do so, if they want to get their music heard that's something they can achieve, if they want to practice and become the most skilled musician that they can be there's no reason why they can't do that, and if they want to make money that's an altogether different pursuit.

The idea that "talent = fame = money" is just pathetic, it's wishful thinking and entitlement.

"If only I were talented I could be a famous/wealthy rockstar", bullshit, even if you are talented you'll never amount to anything with that attitude, not in a world full of talented people, many of whom want your dream more than you as demonstrated their willingness to work for it.

Anything is only a sub goal without companionship. Mammals are meant to be in collective society's.

Also bullshit, sure we are social creatures but you're making a straw man of me if you're saying I'm denying that, indeed if anything what I'm talking about is especially relevant to society, our identities as dictated to us by society are nebulous and inconsistent, unreliable, so it is the responsibility if each and everyone of us to decide who we are for ourselves, and that identity, that purpose, decides our place in society.

Consider a town with a blacksmith and a carpenter, the blacksmith has a beard and the carpenter is clean shaven, a farm boy comes into town look into learn a trade, if he has a beard people will tell him he should become a blacksmith, if he doesn't they'll tell him he looks like a carpentry kind of guy, but the choice is his to make and if he chooses to be a beardless blacksmith or a beardless carpenter he will change people's perceptions of what blacksmiths/carpenters can look like.

My point is that society has neither the right nor expertise to decide for us who we are, because we aren't anything, nobody is born to be a carpenter, blacksmith or rockstar, it is our choice of actions that decide who we are and the identities we are given, to decide our actions based upon our identity is putting the cart before the horse.

Furthermore don't think this is limited to occupations, the example that inspired this thread, the "Puppeteer" of the GitS movie was (supposedly) a bureaucrat that became frustrated with the social and economic problems of his country so he devised the solid state society to kidnap children from abusive families, assign them the patronage of old people on the brink of death (whose money would otherwise end up in government hands after they die and so were all too happy to be patrons) thus providing the children safe and prosperous upbringings (assumedly in foster homes and orphanages) which in turn would help alleviate future Japan's social/economic problems.

...what was I on about again?

Oh right, when the plot is uncovered (among other plots of his) the Puppeteer reveals himself (maybe), shoots himself (maybe) and dies (maybe) but before he does Kusanagi interrogates him (well, tries to) and he says (among many things) that although his actions have lead to him having to kill himself he dies without regret because it was his actions that gave his life meaning.

Spoiler

 

[Black Rose]

Not that integrity is bad or anything but to expect that everyone gives the same value to their actions doesn't really follow from that ideal spectrum of having a purpose. I can say that I have no purpose most of the time but am not useless or any less valuable. The be and becoming are not that distinguishable if both are seen as good. Work should be effortless if you feel fulfilled by it. Though I don't see how when it comes to achievement we can all be equal.

What is Cognisant's purpose, has he found it. Is this thread meant for something.

 

[Cognisant]

My purpose, is to find purpose *smirk*

Not for recognition, not for where or what it gets me, I want justification for being here because y'see I'm terribly nihilistic but too sensible to do anything rash, although a certain rashness is required, the drive to do something with my life necessitates that I get worked up about something, that I find some reason to live.

Don't tell me I should live for the sake of living, I know that, I'm already doing it (wouldn't be here to type this if I wasn't) but I want more, I suppose biologically speaking I'm at that point in my life when I should find a mate and work at raising young (or economically speaking tie myself down with a house and mortgage) so that I have legitimate problems to spend my time on.

But I can't self consciously do that to myself, especially while there potentially exists more noble reasons to live, more interesting problems to solve, I guess I want to be the puppeteer, and for that I don't need neural implants or improbable hacking skills (though that would be cool) or a svelte & buxom genius to hunt me down (that would also be cool), I just need... a worthwhile cause.

 

[kvothe27]

To clarify, all I meant to say is that a person's identity or purpose doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and this should be taken into consideration when attempting self-definition. I'm not saying someone should just let other people dictate his identity. However, without other people, and what they mirror back, there is no identity or it becomes increasingly volatile. It's not about what other people think, so much as what we see when we interact with others. In this sense, what other people mirror back to us, if they are candid in how they interact with us, is important in developing a person's identity. What other people mirror back to us provides vitally important data in determining our identities.


So, when someone defines himself as having the purpose of becoming a blacksmith, and all he sees mirrored back to him (and the people mirroring back to him are experts or potential customers or whatever), is that he has no talent, for example, by noticing that he cannot keep up with his work, makes a lot of mistakes relative to others at his experience level, and continues to do so throughout the rest of his life, all while never being able to make any money while doing so, then this doesn't seem fulfilling or psychologically healthy to me.

Keep in mind, that his could all happen while everyone is telling him he is awesome and that he is or can become a blacksmith, but what is actually being mirrored back is the opposite.

 

[Turniphead]

Making art apparently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsuqvLIttk

 

[WRLtheIV]

To clarify, all I meant to say is that a person's identity or purpose doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and this should be taken into consideration when attempting self-definition.

I am inclined to disagree. just because it appears that we don't exist in a social vacuum doesn't mean that we must necessarily take that into account when attempting to self define.

So if I ask you "who are you" or to phrase it more accurately "what is your purpose" do you have an answer? You may exist but until you can answer that question does that existence, your identity, does it meaning anything?

assuming that we do exist, I have found logic to be lacking in determining ones purpose. any conclusion either exists in a closed system (rendering itself useless in the grand scheme of an individuals existence) or functions in contrast to an equally plausible counter-conclusion. This forces us to take the logical proof farther back to the issue of the purpose of existence. and since we cannot know the answer to that question until the moment after we die, we have no basis for logically differentiating between different purposes available to oneself.

since logic renders all options equal, i posit that ones purpose should be to revert to their emotion and choose whatever they desire most. since you can base your entire life on any one thing that you hold to be true, it is important that you choose the thing that you instinctively hold to be true.

 

[NullPointer]

I guess you could split this into "divine purpose" and "mundane purpose". Divine purpose would be the absolute, purest form of purpose, and mundane purpose would be a weaker form of purpose which more directly correlates with how the word is actually used, e.g., the purpose of a car is to take people from A to B.

Divine purpose: I don't believe there is any purpose, and I don't even believe it's necessary to select a purpose for yourself either (the purpose of finding a purpose), although it could provide some consistency of action, I suppose, if you're working towards a definite goal. Without a divine entity to assign purpose to something, does it make sense to even consider the absolute purpose of something? Do things have that property at all, or is it as meaningful as asking what the colour of a number is?

Mundane purpose: If you consider purpose to be the intended result of the existence of something, as it is when talking about inanimate objects, then that purpose is assigned by the creators of that thing. If this is applied to people, it might be valid to argue that your purpose is assigned by your manufacturer, I.E., your parents. Any reasons for your conception would then become your "purpose".

That's probably hair-splitting, but I think there is no absolute answer to this question, so instead you can find a less pure (mundane) answer.