The Illusion of Identity
It has been an age-old, philosophical problem… And quite possibly, one impossible to solve:
What is identity, and how is it retained over time?
No matter what answer we give to this, or any other question concerning identity, we end up with either an unhelpful, mystical explanation, or an objective, yet unsatisfactory response.
And perhaps, the reason for this is because the very concept of identity is the product of a fundamental misunderstanding of both reality, as well as the nature of consciousness itself.
Here is a quick summary of where things go wrong:
Language does not begin when we think, speak, or write. It begins when we formulate the reality we perceive into the internal narrative we refer to as consciousness.
First, there is reality ‘as is’ (prior to being perceived).
Then, there is reality ‘as experienced’ (while being perceived, but prior to being interpreted).
And finally, there is reality ‘as formulated’ (after it is interpreted and synthesized into explicit thought).
In other words, there is the matter which occupies the space.
It is existentially inseparable and therefore indistinguishable from all other matter, as it is all part of the same causal system.
Then, there is the matter as perceived through the senses and processed by the nervous system.
By nature, the senses evolved to filter information based on its use to the lifeform they belong to. It is therefore, that reality is perceived through the lens of survival.
Finally, there is the matter formulated as part of the lifeform’s conscious experience.
This is the point at which the internal narrative of language emerges in its most primal form:
Concepts.
They are how we see the world when we focus our attention on what we see as existentially distinguishable (to us).
For example, when we are made aware of the existence of an entity, we will attempt to establish what it’s relation to our survival may be.
Is it harmful? Is it beneficial? How does it affect us?
This is the underlying process of every living being’s perception of the world.
Before anything else, our main concern is staying alive — even before we know what staying alive, or dying, even means.
It is therefore that the point at which instinct gives way to conscious thought, is when we recognize what is in front of us as a specific entity which is relevant to our survival.
It is also the point at which language emerges in the form of concepts:
The concept of a tree.
The concept of a branch.
The concept of sharpness.
The concept of a sharp branch.
The concept of harm.
The concept of a weapon.
For the concepts we weave are fundamentally interlinked with our own survival, and, as a consequence — our ability to thrive as living beings.
It is therefore, that through these concepts we reach the conclusion that the ‘entities’ we observe are, in fact, distinguishable — and, ultimately, that they each possess their own, unique identity (or spirit, if you will).
It is also through this lens that we interpret our own existence, as well as the existence of other human beings, and inevitably — their thoughts, actions, speech, and intentions, within the same context of what we believe to be their identity (relative to our own).
And this is where things go really, really wrong.
…or really right, depending on how you use the force of nature we call ideas.
Let me be clear — the error of our ways is not in the act of interpretation itself. The error is in the careless interpretation of the reality we experience.
For it is beyond our ability to change the reality of what we experience — instead, what we have power over, is how we formulate that experience into conscious thought.
What this all amounts to is that a lot of the ideas which are passed around — a lot of the thoughts we find ourselves in… The very thoughts we base our speech and actions on… Are fundamentally flawed and obsolete.
Because they don’t account for the discrepancy between concepts and reality, and — as a consequence, lead us to the mistaken belief that our most accepted ideas are objective and factual, when at best what they are is simply pragmatically viable.
It is precisely due to this misunderstanding that we often end up thinking, acting, and speaking through the lens of ideals and identity, instead of through simple, practical observations — the lens of reality.
This splits our perception of the world into explicit and implicit information — where the explicit is communicated through language and concepts, while the implicit through everything else — the space between the words, if you will.
But the trouble with empty space is precisely that — there is nothing to interpret — or, rather, by definition it cannot be interpreted lest it becomes explicit, and the reality is lost to language…
Except, that there are cases in which there is both “language” and “reality”.
…In poetry and mathematics, we are cast into the world of abstraction, and yet, there is no explicit communication, as the abstractions are pure — much like in music, art, and non-lingual communication… But at the same time undeniably expressed through language.
While it is certainly true that if you stretch the definition of language to include concepts, then almost everything becomes a form of “language”, including music, art, and any deliberate communication…
…And while the only time during which we can say that we are completely free from the shackles of identity, would be when our minds are free from all thought, it is also true that to abandon concepts and language would be an enormous loss to humanity.
Therefore, what makes sense to me is that we aim to be more particular about how we communicate, as well as interpret what is communicated to us. But this, I’m afraid, can only ever be taught and learned willingly — it would require and Individual Revolution to take place meaningfully.
And, of course, in order for this to happen, it would require your willingness as well, Dear Reader. What do you think?
