Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GoatLord

Reflections on identification rejection

Recommended Posts

During the last couple of years, I've been experimenting with rejection of identification. This began with easy variables to put aside (religious and political affiliation), but got a bit strange when I rejected my gender, my sexuality and ultimately my humanity. In contrast, those around me seem very attached to the specificity of who they are; they have an innate desire to feel "right" in their bodies, to explicitly telegraph to others through stereotypes and archetypes who they fundamentally are.

 

From a Western perspective, with its excessive focus on the individual, this rejection seems to fall under disorders with silly names, like depersonalization or derealization. From an Eastern perspective, this fits in with Buddhist notions of a genderless soul, as well as the concept that reality is a single, unending phenomena, making it rather pointless to needlessly compartmentalize everything. 

 

I'm curious as to your thoughts on identification being central to being, versus existing as an observer who just so happens to temporarily inhabit a tiny region of enclosed spacetime, i.e. a human vessel. The former provides materialistic but ultimately superficial security, while the latter liberates one from the need to identify, the price being a loss of connection with what most Westerners value.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, we evolved a need to identify specific individuals within the family/tribe/group/city/country/world for a reason.

 

Whether you feel that's worthwhile or not is basically its own question, but we definitely socially evolved a need to differentiate this person from that one, and it's universal across virtually all societies.

 

Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the purpose, do you suppose, of relying so much on those distinctions?

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting topic; may post an actual response later if I can find the time <3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

What is the purpose, do you suppose, of relying so much on those distinctions?

 

So people can pretend to understand their surroundings and ignore the notion that all of us are part of a much bigger whole. Our similarities far outweigh our differences but watch a random news report and tell me what the focus is.

 

I never understood people's needs to adhere to stereo- and archetypes, certain sides of their soul are overdeveloped while others are severely underdeveloped but I guess the saying's true, ignorance is bliss.

 

I'm not too sure about flat out rejecting parts of what I perceive as my identity as I am about acknowledging and studying those parts to learn more. If you are not aware of your dark impulses, you can not control them either so I'd rather face it head on. I agree with materialistic security being superficial as it often leads to people ignoring the big picture and long term effects of their actions. The lower you set the bar for yourself and your behaviour, the easier it becomes to rationalise a justification on why you should screw other people over.

 

On the subject of depersonalisation: I am not an ant, none of us are nor are we Borg drones. History has shown over and over that one individual can make a difference so in my opinion we are right to value it highly BUT we should be more aware that ego can work against us if we don't submit it. That might sound weird but ego is that thing that makes you lazy, complacent and entitled which are traits that are exhibited in abundance in the Western world. People say competition and free market is good and it is to a certain degree but if the people working against each other could set aside their egos and work with each other, much more could probably be accomplished. It's absurd that wars are the biggest catalyst when it comes to our technological developments, if only those damn aliens or demons would attack :)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GoatLord said:

This began with easy variables to put aside (religious and political affiliation), but got a bit strange when I rejected my gender, my sexuality and ultimately my humanity.

 

Umm you can't reject your way out of being a human being, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post

You misunderstand, @Linguica. Rejection of a human construct is not the same as rejecting the physically manifest thing it represents.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GoatLord said:

What is the purpose, do you suppose, of relying so much on those distinctions?

Being able to tell people apart from one another is a basic survival instinct, not just a social construct... When you're a little one and you depend on the help of others to survive, you need to know who your parents are, and where to get the breast milk from. By the same token your parents need to be able to tell who their child is.

 

All social structures mankind has come up with exist because our ability to differentiate people works the way it does. If you couldn't tell who's who, you wouldn't even know who your boss is, or who your co-workers are, for example. You also wouldn't be able to tell who to ask for advice, or who to ask for help when your car needs repairs. It really doesn't matter if you redefine yourself in some way shape or form, or try and toss your current concept of identification out the window in an attempt to develop your own idea, the ability to differentiate people is something you will still need, because you'll want to be able to tell those who accept your way of living life apart frome those who do not. In short, you don't rely on this ability by your own choice, you rely on it because you have to, for one reason or another.

But let's assume for the sake of the argument that all the "established archetypes" didn't exist, and now we'd need to come up with a concept by which we identify our "role" relative everybody else, and everybody else's role relative to us... Where would you even start? And do you think that you'd not create your own stereotypes, or broad categories eventually, based on previous experiences you've made, just to be able to make distinctions without getting "overwhelmed" by the sheer number of impressions you'd have to deal with otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Nevander said:

There's nothing to reflect on. You are what and who you are.

 

How is there nothing to reflect on? I'm probably taking this too literal but it sounds like there's no room to grow or change from your perspective. If it's more along the lines of just be content with what you are and what you experience then I can understand.

Share this post


Link to post

I have noticed that it's neccessary to distinguish between different clusters of matter to make modern life possible, but what I reject is the programmed-from-birth notion that 

1) identity is real beyond language games and 

2) identification with the act of identification is necessary for a person to feel complete or whole. 

 

Also, @Marcaek, I have used this thought experiment and psychedelic practices to bring about depersonalization. I think it helps detach one from the existential dead ends. Identity is descriptively useful in conversation, but serves no function in examining the mind, or the bigger picture (beyond the human paradigm) of reality. What is to be gained from identity as it pertains to the inner self?

Edited by GoatLord

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, GoatLord said:

what I reject is the programmed-from-birth notion that 

1) identity is real beyond language games

Identity is real whether you like it or not. Your way of thinking, your abilites, the competence you have in some regards or not, all your personal preferences... All that is part of the "entity" that is you.

 

5 hours ago, GoatLord said:

2) identification with the act of identification is necessary for a person to feel complete or whole. 

You still need to able to tell who you are, because that's how you find your orientation in life. If you just wipe it all out, then what's left of you as a person? Part of your identity is your current situation, and how you project it into the future to make plans in life. If you toss that all out the window, you'll ultimately stop moving forward on your own behalf, turn into a blank slate and depend entirely on others to give you a sense of "being".

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

Share this post


Link to post

Depersonalization/derealization and ego death are not the same thing and I'd strongly advise against the former.

Share this post


Link to post

The first point is about the concept that identity holds relevance beyond social constructs, that is, in defining the inner self. I reject that because the inner self exists independently of our constructs. The inner self is one node in a massive consciousness network (humans and otherwise) and thus defining it in terms of archetypes and roles is only useful societally, but useless to the soul. 

 

The second point is related to the first; if you are taught to see identity as important beyond societal games, then you use identifiers (labels, roles, archetypes) to define the inner self/soul. That is what is meant by identifying with identification. It is an exercise in associating the consciousness network ONLY within human confines which, in terms of the universe, is a bit solipsistic.

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW the basic idea of what you're getting at is nothing new. On a neurological level the "self" isn't really an actual thing that exists and the Buddhists have had this figured out for a while now.

 

Everything else you're saying, particularly the bit about derealization, is gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post

But what is nonsense? Can there be nonsense if there was never even sense to begin with? 

Share this post


Link to post

You can call it gibberish if you like, because I don't necessarily disagree, but they're empty words if you don't follow up with the why.

Share this post


Link to post

"Please dissect my meaningless garbage to explain exactly why it is garbage"

 

No

Share this post


Link to post

What is the purpose of saying it's bullshit, then refusing to elaborate? Isn't the burden on you, since you made the claim? If someone is confused, then they can ask a question and I'll answer as best as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, GoatLord said:

You can call it gibberish if you like, because I don't necessarily disagree, but they're empty words of you don't follow up with the why.

 

Experienced meditators are able to reach the hypothetical "non-self" state you describe but it's more akin to extreme mindfulness and couldn't possibly be further from derealization/depersonalization. You're just mentally jerking yourself off because you can't put the damn blunt down for half a second.

 

Furthermore as someone with PTSD I think I'm pretty qualified to say that depersonalization and derealization are neither good nor healthy.

Share this post


Link to post

I posted this completely sober. I think using blunts (which I don't smoke) as a crutch is silly. In the East, mental illness is usually seen as a sign of shamanic or spiritual potential; interesting that in the West, it's seen as a behavior to be mitigated through side-effect laced pills.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, GoatLord said:

What is the purpose, do you suppose, of relying so much on those distinctions?

Distinction between individuals (roles, purposes, identities, etc.) is the foundation of society. To me society is nothing more than a complexification and refinement of the principle of "chief makes Grug skin deer, Ook make spear, Boog do hunting, because these are what tribe needs and are good at".

1 minute ago, GoatLord said:

In the East, mental illness is usually seen as a sign of shamanic or spiritual potential; interesting that in the West, it's seen as a behavior to be mitigated through side-effect laced pills.

Because mental illness is, by definition, physical or psychological problems preventing the mind from properly working. These are not magical little special abilities enabling you to be more spiritual or powerful. They are disorders that regularly cause people to shotgun decorate the walls with their faces rather than bear them any longer. If you honestly believe letting them spiral out of control is a superior option to treating them- disingenuous snaps at "side effects" or not- then you're sorely misguided at the very best, imbecilic at worst.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in mitigating mental illness through mindfulness, shamanism, altruism and using the Christ/Buddha archetype as a catalyst for self-improvement. I don't think "letting [it] spiral out of control" makes sense and I don't see why you even mentioned it when it is not one of my practices.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, GoatLord said:

I believe in mitigating mental illness through mindfulness, shamanism, altruism and using the Christ/Buddha archetype as a catalyst for self-improvement. I don't think "letting [it] spiral out of control" makes sense and I don't see why you even mentioned it when it is not one of my practices.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_bypass

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

What is the purpose of saying it's bullshit, then refusing to elaborate? Isn't the burden on you, since you made the claim?

You are the one making the claims that "the inner self exists independently of our constructs" and "the inner self is one node in a massive consciousness network". As far as I know those are not demonstrable facts and are based on nothing except your imagination. That's why I dismiss it as bullshit and the burden is on you to show otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×