what is your identity

[davey72]

I am curious as to what and where people feel their identity comes from. Do you see yourself as others see you? Can the way we identify ourselves be shaped by others views of us? Example. If i find out i have a disease it may not change my view of myself but if others know can this then change my identity of myself or can it change how others identify me?
I am curious of peoples views.
Another example. You go to aa meetings and stand up to exclaim you are an addict everytime. Will this ensure that you stay an addict?

 

[MusicMan]

Interesting point.
I know that a lot of people when they are discussing their own situation speak about their illnesses as if they 'own' them.
"My breast cancer" for example.
A lot of older folk I know are almost defined by 'their' illnesses.

 

[whitecoast]

I am curious as to what and where people feel their identity comes from. Do you see yourself as others see you? Can the way we identify ourselves be shaped by others views of us? Example. If i find out i have a disease it may not change my view of myself but if others know can this then change my identity of myself or can it change how others identify me?
I am curious of peoples views.
Another example. You go to aa meetings and stand up to exclaim you are an addict everytime. Will this ensure that you stay an addict?

We definitely are influenced by how others see us I think, especially as children since we absorb so much subconsciously to try and suss out what our position and vocation in the "tribe" is. I've noticed my identity is something that tends to come from other people. All I am is in contrast to what others either are or are not. Being white, being non-white, being considered gifted, being considered slow, being rich, being poor, etc. are all things that others tell me I am. I rarely think of myself as a "human", probably because I don't know many animals who speak my language.

As for AA, I think always defaulting to saying "I am X" can create identification and paralyze our ability to edit our personal narratives a la Pennebaker and Timothy Wilson in Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. (interesting aside about AA: _http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/?utm_source=SFFB).

Who we ultimately are, as opposed to what we have (race, gender, class are things given to us by others), is I think the sum of our choices, based on knowledge. Castaneda placed a lot of emphasis on "erasing our personal history", meaning to give up as much of our given identities as possible to free ourselves. A part of me wonders if this relates to moving into a new reality via withdrawing from the realities of others we choose not to participate in.

Mod Edit: Some sentences were in tiny unreadable fonts, fixed now :)

 

[JonnyRadar]

Another example. You go to aa meetings and stand up to exclaim you are an addict everytime. Will this ensure that you stay an addict?

Interesting question. This is something I struggled with in the past specifically in regards to AA. It felt like negative reinforcement, which led me to other avenues of dealing with that particular problem. It works for some - I know people who have attended meetings for 20+ years and wouldn't be sober without it. However, Gabor Mate also seems to discourage the reinforcement of the "addict" identity and instead say "I am addicted" - and personally that makes more sense to me - to refer to it in the sense of an adjective rather than shaping one's whole identity around one defining characteristic.

Regarding your general question, since beginning to study the 4th way and related topics, I've pretty much given up on the notion that I truly had any idea who I really am. I think the discovery of one's identity is an ongoing process. People like to say that only they truly know themselves, but I honestly think this is a lie. We appear to really be made of up many different personalities, shaped by experience, influence, perhaps even past lives, etc. If everyone actually knew themselves, fully knew their identity, society would be a much more coherent and consistent phenomenon, but looking around, it becomes clearer every day that the majority of people (including myself) are basically stumbling through a series of reactions to stimuli.

If i find out i have a disease it may not change my view of myself but if others know can this then change my identity of myself or can it change how others identify me?

I guess this would depend on how you define yourself - is it based on your own reading instrument or on your perception of others' perceptions?

 

[SeekinTruth]

It seems those of us in the Work are practicing not to identify with the numerous small i's formed in us throughout life. Until we have a fully seated Real I, the practice of not identifying with the changing small i's helps to remember that these are transitory, programmed, and mechanical "identities". So pretty much all usual identities are aspects of false personality in Work terms. Knowing this and practicing self observation and self remembering makes it easier to fall into identification of all sorts less frequent.

 

[Alada]

We definitely are influenced by how others see us I think, especially as children since we absorb so much subconsciously to try and suss out what our position and vocation in the "tribe" is. I've noticed my identity is something that tends to come from other people. All I am is in contrast to what others either are or are not. Being white, being non-white, being considered gifted, being considered slow, being rich, being poor, etc. are all things that others tell me I am. I rarely think of myself as a "human", probably because I don't know many animals who speak my language.

Well if you consider the word 'identity' it seems obviously linked with the concept of 'identification', and as has been described before in relation to that, we become the thing we are identified with. Which can change from moment to moment, our 'identity' changes.

In that light, it might be better to consider the notion of 'identity' as a facet of personality, i.e. that which is not our own within us. The task then is to find what we become identified with And weed them out. Hopefully over time then we can see what we are left with, what we really are in essence, and, what we need to teach ourselves now in order for essence to grow and mature in a proper way.

Davey72's initial post spoke about how identity might define how others see us, how those thoughts might literally define us. I think it might be more useful to turn that thought completely around, that it is what WE think which colours everything, or more precisely what we think others think of us that colours everything. Makes our assumptions.

What we imagine others think of us can literally change the way we see them. If I imagine a person is angry with me, then everything thing about them becomes angry in my eyes, a look, a word, tone of voice, expression etc all coloured, even if there is no real data to support it! Change the assumption though, and that same face a moment later can be completely without any trace of anger, there is care, humor, good will.

It really is mind boggling. Our personalities really do mangle our perceptions horribly, it's not the best tool set with which to try and descern who we are really are! So maybe best first of all to discover what is obviously personality within us, work on that. We need to clear the way first, clean the machine, then we might stand a better chance of finding out what we are left with - who we really are.

 

[Psalehesost]

We definitely are influenced by how others see us I think, especially as children since we absorb so much subconsciously to try and suss out what our position and vocation in the "tribe" is. I've noticed my identity is something that tends to come from other people. All I am is in contrast to what others either are or are not. Being white, being non-white, being considered gifted, being considered slow, being rich, being poor, etc. are all things that others tell me I am. I rarely think of myself as a "human", probably because I don't know many animals who speak my language.

For more on how that works, the thread The Adaptive Unconscious (about the book Strangers to Ourselves) gives a general idea.

In short, we have a personality for each kind of situation we're in and relationship we have to those we're interacting with. Our behavior is largely governed by a complicated, unconscious information processing system in our brains. We automatically learn ways to respond and "be" in each case, and then these patterns are automatically followed.

And we can't "see" how the unconscious works - the best we can do is observe how we tend to be in practice, as a basis for figuring out what we're actually like. But since we tend to miss a lot of things about how we act and react, to get an accurate view, we also need to ask others for their views.

It's modern science confirming Gurdjieff's basic idea about "little 'I's", etc.

Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change

Good thread to go with the above - Wilson lays out how we can gradually change. We can work on the "stories" we tell ourselves, and we can act differently (to some extent) and gradually change our habits.

And, in both good and bad ways, others can also make us automatically change the way we usually think and react by giving our unconscious a little "nudge" - which we usually have no idea has happened. It happens a lot in society, often in destructive ways - from narcissism in the family, to the school system, to advertising, to pathological politics and propaganda in the media, etc., etc.

 

[luc]

As others have said, I think the Work also consists in giving up identification with the various aspects of our personality ("little I's"), as well as stopping to worry about what others think of us, or more precisely, about what we think that others think of us.

Gurdjieff makes the point in ISOTM that generally, humans avoid thinking/talking about themselves using their first name. So one thing I do sometimes is mentally say my name, while at the same time imagining myself as if I look at myself from outside. I think this can give interesting results and sometimes helps me to "ground myself", when my mind wanders and makes up all kinds of stories about how others think of me.

At least for me - where I'm at at the moment - I find it useful to try hard not to think about what others think of me at all, instead of trying to understand objectively what they think of me. This understanding would need a lot of data I think, which in many social situations we simply don't have. So when thinking about what others think of us, I think it's mostly what Gurdjieff would describe as imagination:

[Man] cannot stop the flow of his thoughts, he cannot control his imagination, his emotions, his attention. ... The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination. He lives in sleep. He is asleep.

In that light, it might be better to consider the notion of 'identity' as a facet of personality, i.e. that which is not our own within us. The task then is to find what we become identified with And weed them out. Hopefully over time then we can see what we are left with, what we really are in essence, and, what we need to teach ourselves now in order for essence to grow and mature in a proper way.

Yes, this from G. comes to mind:

"Instead of the man he had supposed himself to be he will see quite another man. This 'other' man is himself and at the same time not himself. It is he as other people know him, as he imagines himself and as he appears in his actions, words, and so on; but not altogether such as he actually is. For a man himself knows that there is a great deal that is unreal, invented, and artificial in this other man whom other people know and whom he knows himself. You must learn to divide the real from the invented. And to begin self-observation and self-study it is necessary to divide oneself. A man must realize that he indeed consists of two men. "One is the man he calls 'I' and whom others call 'Ouspensky,' 'Zakharov' or 'Petrov.' The other is the real he, the real I, which appears in his life only for very short moments and which can become firm and permanent only after a very lengthy period of work.

"So long as a man takes himself as one person he will never move from where he is. His work on himself starts from the moment when he begins to feel two men in himself. One is passive and the most it can do is to register or observe what is happening to it. The other, which calls itself 'I,' is active, and speaks of itself in the first person, is in reality only 'Ouspensky,' 'Petrov' or 'Zakharov.'

 

[davey72]

It seems those of us in the Work are practicing not to identify with the numerous small i's formed in us throughout life. Until we have a fully seated Real I, the practice of not identifying with the changing small i's helps to remember that these are transitory, programmed, and mechanical "identities". So pretty much all usual identities are aspects of false personality in Work terms. Knowing this and practicing self observation and self remembering makes it easier to fall into identification of all sorts less frequent.

Thanks for all the comments. The reason i asked this question was because it was posed by a Doctor who is a friend. He is writing a philosphical paper for his schooling. He wants my opinion. I reccomended that he read Isotm as he has thought it intriguing when i brought up the concept of being a different person all the time. He also wants me to write a little something about the topic that he can cite in his paper.

 

[luc]

Thanks for all the comments. The reason i asked this question was because it was posed by a Doctor who is a friend. He is writing a philosphical paper for his schooling. He wants my opinion. I reccomended that he read Isotm as he has thought it intriguing when i brought up the concept of being a different person all the time. He also wants me to write a little something about the topic that he can cite in his paper.

As has already been said, maybe "Strangers to ourselves" would be a good recommendation, as well as "Thinking, fast and slow". These are both not "esoteric" and kind of prove G's concepts as laid out in ISOTM with the tools of contemporary science. Fwiw

 

[Tracy Anne]

Well this is an interesting topic davey72.

2 years ago I worked for a retired neurologist who specialised in treating people with epilepsy. He told me that he always referred to his patients as Mr X WHO HAD epilepsy NOT Mr X THE EPILEPTIC as this identified the person with epilepsy.

I have met many people who like to be identified by their illness (I am a Carer) and they wouldnt want it any other way! They love to talk about it and make a big deal about their daily routine of taking their medication etc. My father is one of these people. Since he retired as an engineer he now identifies himself with having chronic illnesses (and he does have several) I guess he is at a loss to know who he is now retired. He was a businessman who spent ALL his spare time building things and working in his shop. The family are all very bored with it!

I have met others who have had chronic conditions since young. One in particular a 38 year old male who has tetrapleagia though a rugby injury at age 18years. 5 years ago I was his enabler/carer and he taught me so much about not identifying with a disability or illness. He acheives more than most able bodied people.....even surfing and riding a motorised hand bake across the Himalyas.....yes true! I would assist him with many sports events...wheel hair rugby and plane travel to events and meetings. His disability did not limit him in achieving what he wants in life and he did not play the 'I am a tetraplegic' card.

As for myself I feel that my identity comes from deep within me and is aligned with my essence with a bit of personality thrown in. At present I am working through Gurdjeiffs teachings and trying to recognise programming. Of course this is a life long work. It has been a big wake up call, as who I thought I was no longer rings true and it is a challenge to change this and align with who I now think I am. I have gone back to my childhood and thought about the things that made me feel connected such as nature, sewing, crafts, singing, painting, reading books. I was quite a shy child but as a young adult I found alcohol and used this to become outgoing and likeable (or so I thought) Now I have given up the bottle (after a bit of a battle) I feel that I am coming back to who I really am. I had lost my identity.

Lifes events and crisis' certainly give us opportunity to discover and dig deep in this regard.

Strangers to Ourselves is a book that I would like to read soon.

 

[davey72]

Thanks again for the replies. I am just wondering how to word my thoughts on our little i's versus essence and and how we are programmed throughout our lives to someone in the medical industry that jasnt been exposed to the work. I mentioned something and althoigh he seems to agree we are mechanical he also dismissed the idea that we are born with oir essence.

 

[Tui]

Well, the older I get, the more I identify myself as a spirit with a body and not as a body with a spirit.

More and more, thus, looking at the world from the perspective of a spirit-being – observing life, people, myself and things more objectively instead of personally. But without becoming cold and distant. Trying to be helpful to others, but without intense emotional involvement directing my acts and thoughts. For instance, although I am concerned about the fate of my children and grandchildren should there be a cataclysmic event on this plant, I also try to look at such an event from a much higher perspective (higher than 3D).

In the context of “my identity”, some of my reading material and quotes will be on perspective, perception, interpretation and attitude. Here are a selection of quotes from the blog Pscychologytoday.com that I ponder to help with understanding and identifying myself on this plane:


Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. ― C.G. Jung

All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream. ― Edgar Allan Poe

There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception. ― Aldous Huxley

It's all in the mind. ― George Harrison

Life is 10 percent what you make it and 90 percent how you take it. ― Irving Berlin

Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears. ― Marcus Aurelius

And those who were seen dancing, were thought to be crazy, by those who could not hear the music. ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Chaos is merely order waiting to be deciphered. ― José Saramago, The Double

To change ourselves effectively, we first had to change our perceptions. ― Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change

If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is – infinite. ― William Blake

There are no facts, only interpretations. ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else. ― J.M. Barrie

It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view. ― George Eliot, Middlemarch: A Study of Provincial Life

What we see depends mainly on what we look for. ― John Lubbock

The fascination of shooting as a sport depends almost wholly on whether you are at the right or wrong end of the gun. ― P.G. Wodehouse, The Adventures of Sally

If the stars should appear but one night every thousand years how man would marvel and adore. ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Child, you have to learn to see things in the right proportions. Learn to see great things great and small things small. ― Corrie Ten Boom

It is the obvious which is so difficult to see most of the time. People say 'It's as plain as the nose on your face.' But how much of the nose on your face can you see, unless someone holds a mirror up to you? ― Isaac Asimov, I, Robot

The best things in life aren't things. ― Art Buchwald

 

[davey72]

Thanks again for all the replies. Between moving and trying to get a new starter for my truck while it is in another city without a phone i will try to find the time right away here to write the best answer i possibly can for this man. He is an addiction specialistand has helped me tremendously through the years. Im not sure i will be able to write anything he can use but i feel i owe it to him.
If anyone hasbanything else to add or a suggestion as to how to word this all to a guy heaped in the medical industry and likely not willing to staer much from the conventional scientific view he has been taught. Although this is a philosophy paper and he did seem interested. Well just ramblibg. Thanks again.
Dave

 

[Psalehesost]

Maybe he can't understand essence if presented as something "spiritual". But maybe he could understand it in terms of genetics. People have different temperaments, predispositions, etc. - and also different potentials for the ways in which they may develop in interaction with the environment.

So, little 'I's are the ways we are programmed to respond to the situations we perceive - both in feeling and thinking, and in action. The nature of our essence, meanwhile, determines the extent to which we can work on ourselves to change that.

Strong essence, strong potential for development. And essence is also linked to emotional maturity. The more it is developed, the greater the emotional maturity. It could be strong, yet immature (undeveloped), meaning a person can change but hasn't yet gone through what's needed for it. Or if weak and immature, there's little hope of deeper change.


There's also the Theory of Positive Disintegration, which deals with this kind of inborn potential for personality development. And we could make the connection that this potential is pretty much a way of defining essence.

Basically, some people are born more sensitive. They experience the pressures of life more intensely, and become neurotic. When their old personality disintegrates, there is something in them which potentially can grow. If it does, this can lead to reshaping themselves after ideals which are consciously chosen, rebuilding the personality with a different quality.

That's a very quick and very simplified summary. For more info, you could perhaps point him to positivedisintegration.com.