Identity Hoarding


I’ve lost count of how many times I have come here in an attempt to linguistically negate our delusional sense of self. Dipping into the vast reservoirs of convoluted euphemisms that form the disciplines of science and philosophy, I’ve asked readers to reimagine this vague composite notion called “you”, redefine or even completely dismantle the “common sense” feeling that your skin-ensconced body/mind system constitutes either the beginning or the end of a person, and take a broader view of the elements essential for life in an effort to weaken the aforementioned sensation of inherent and self-contained existence. Now seems as good a time as any to thank all of you faithful readers for being such good sports in graciously entertaining my amateur attempts at grandiose philosophy and responding as if I had said anything sensible at all.

You see, in impetuously jumping to such lofty conclusions, I failed to notice that I skipped right over a vital step in dismantling this multi-tiered illusion of collective ego. To use an overplayed analogy, I was trying to run before I had mastered the art of walking.

The influence of Eastern thought on my writing — coupled with a novice understanding of its underlying message — frequently inspires me to get ahead of myself. A far more sensible starting point for an attempt at instruction in the lessening of mental delusion would be, perhaps, the parsing of the previous sentence, particularly the phrase “inspires me to get ahead of myself”. Right there, through the employment of the black magic of language, I created a duality. I verbally split myself in two. The phrase implied a primary actor — the one who gets ahead — and then posited a second entity through the use of the word “myself” upon which the primary actor is working. How many people was I trying to discuss in that sentence? The statement explicitly treated “me” as a multiplicity; funny for someone who is constantly caterwauling about the non-existence of even a definitive singularity called self as the basis of any life form.

Before starting this essay, I did a little random reading of recent posts on WordPress. To maximize objectivity, they weren’t those of bloggers I follow — many of whom are also readers of my page — but just an arbitrary selection of posts by authors with whom I am unfamiliar. Of course, I found myself reading dispatches from many people who seem to think they are actually multiple people inhabiting a single body. Phrases such as these were in abundance: “I am very proud of myself today”; “The me that likes to go out and party overtook the me that knows it should have stayed home and taken care of housework”; “I can’t shake the voice in my head that tells me I’m not worthy”; “This week, I am going to create a to-do list for myself and this time, I intend to stick with it”; “I am going to get (bland inspirational word or phrase) tattooed on my arm so that I never forget”; “Today, I am going to be kind to myself”.

Mind you, I’m not trying to mock these anonymous writers for their word choices because, of course, this is how we all speak. This is the language we’ve got, like it or lump it. And though we as a culture tend to over-utilize language to reinforce our anxious delusion of self, communication is nonetheless necessary. Can we really hope to overhaul not just one language but an entire system of related languages all of which were intentionally built upon the assumption that everybody literally means every body? That one’s fluid and unbounded system of energy, matter and consciousness is actually a static entity called “me”?

Contrary to popular belief, neuroscientists and biologists don’t have the slightest clue as to what consciousness is and from whence it arises. They have, quite impressively, figured out the function of various areas of the brain responsible for sensory apprehension, emotion, instinct and that infinitely questionable thing we call memory. But those are simply states experienced by consciousness — they are not, individually or collectively, consciousness itself. Admitting this agnosticism might be a great start in the pursuit of this elusive knowledge, but it would probably also be the end of the pursuit. Once it is known that something is unknowable, research in its direction becomes a wild goose chase.

So for now, let’s leave the metaphysics at the door for once and just examine the mass schizophrenia inherent in our species’ customary thought patterns. Before meditating on the insubstantial nature of “you”, why not begin by consolidating that “you” into a single idea? At the very least, this should minimize the number of “you’s” that need analytical negation.

The Romance languages we speak in the West were constructed to reinforce a power structure, a hierarchy. The perpetual subject-object split in our words becomes a perpetual subject-object split in our conception of reality itself. So the artificial relation of king to subject, master to slave, dominant husband to dutiful wife works its way through our psyches until we find ourselves thinking and speaking in a way that implies such a hierarchical structure within ourselves. This is why we believe that we have a good side and a bad side; a playful side and a serious side. Where might such sides be located in opposition to each other? To say that you have a devilish side and an angelic side is the same as saying that you have a devilish self and an angelic self. Replacing the word self with side does nothing to eradicate the illusion of multiple personalities inhabiting a single body, some of which are virtuous and some of which are sinful. Once these personalities are established in our minds as aspects of an ego, the mental erection of a power structure begins. The good and virtuous side should reign supreme and authoritative over the irresponsible and reckless side. An authority and a frequently unruly servant are imagined with every such conceptual split. But this split is itself the illusion. There is only one “you”, no matter how difficult I endeavor to make the definition of the word “you”. There’s still just one. But the fact that we feel otherwise is exactly what sustains the broader hierarchies of human society. While we are at war with ourselves, others utilize this distraction to climb another power rung for more widespread subjugation of those needed as underlings to sustain the superior feelings and positions of the overlings. And, of course, all of this is true for the simple reason that we continually reinforce it with words and concepts that hypnotize us into believing it to be true.

So perhaps the mythical “enlightened” human being is nothing more mysterious than someone who has figured out the duplicitous nature of society and the language used to describe it and in response, has gradually divested him or herself of the speech patterns that inform the thought patterns that inform the behavior patterns of a pawn within an inescapable power structure. As such, this might just be the most dangerous kind of person imaginable to those who perpetuate this illusion for selfish and neurotic ends. As soon as the artificial structure is questioned, it begins to disintegrate and if it disintegrates, there will be no more subjugation for the very fact that no one will be in a position to be subjugated. It therefore follows that there would no longer be a system in place that needs authorities and followers to sustain it. We would re-inherit our personal power by destroying the very need for interpersonal power. We would all be our own masters, our own teachers and our own therapists. Except it would be far less duplicitous than that. I just don’t currently have the words to describe it adequately.

So let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?  For those who wish to play with their own conception of reality, here are a few simple suggestions to employ in the upcoming week. Stop talking to yourself. Easier said than done, of course, but at least get started on this mental shift in the navigation of your daily life. Since it is obviously impossible for a single self to talk to itself, just ruminate on that logic until you begin to feel silly every time you have a thought like, “Come on, Paul, pull it together.” Who is speaking to Paul and why would Paul even listen to an unidentified voice admonishing it to pull some undefined something together? You will continue to think such thoughts because they have a lifetime of habitual reinforcement behind them. But little by little, when they arise, you will begin to feel the absurdity of such imagined conversations between non-entities and this will almost certainly cause the habit itself to dissipate. Stop being your own cheerleader and/or critic. Someone who performs an action cannot be the objective judge of that very same actor. No matter what, your ingrained ethics will cause you to have a visceral reaction to your own recent behaviors and that is the only guide you need. It’s called intuition and it doesn’t speak to itself. If you have the annoying habit of referring to yourself in the third person, stop. Just stop. And finally, try to minimize moment-to-moment conceptualizing of your experience. If you’re taking a walk, don’t try to analyze the details of why you decided to do so, what you could be doing that’s more “productive” or even whether you’re happy or sad or introspective or melancholy or anxious or depressed while performing the act of walking. Just walk. The rest will take care of itself if you simply let go and allow it to follow its natural path. You might just find that this little uncharacteristic stroll was the greatest gift you ever bestowed upon yourself for the very reason that you were incapable of giving something to yourself and for once in your fucking life, you understood that.

28 thoughts on “Identity Hoarding

  1. Good morning. I’ve been thinking about this concept (which is your goal, I think). There are only two times when I consisting talk to myself in the third person. When I am exercising, and I need a coach voice in my head, I think of that line from Matrix where Trinity tumbles down the stairs, she says, “Get up, Trinity.” My minds tends to get distracted when I’m exercising, so it is my brain’s way of trying to bring my attention/focus back to task.
    The other time, which is probably more what you you are referencing, is when I talk to my lady beast. To me, it is simply a way of recognizing/identifying some strong emotions I am feeling. I understand that it is still me, which is where I think mental illness differentiates. But it gives me a way to identify what is happening. Until I can live on a mountaintop (with no communication to people, which a don’t really want), I will need a few coping mechanisms. Recognizing if they are positive or negative to me is important. Right now, I am standing in the office window enjoying the warm sunshine on my face. At this exact moment, I am content. : ) Stimulating topic.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you, Deanna! It’s usually safe to assume that for everything I write in a tone of “this is the way it is”, there are thousands of completely reasonable exceptions to whatever it is I said. Like both of your examples, for instance. And you are right on the money: if you are fully aware of the fact that you’re not really speaking to anyone and that it nonetheless motivates and/or comforts you, not only is it harmless, it is emotionally positive.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m trying to figure out an expressive way to describe you when I share this incredibly cogent and illuminating post to the followers of Tom, but I realize that very sentence means I’m not listening to Paul the way that Tom should.

    But, if I did, I would have to change the title of my blog to Self Being Self or Me Being Me, or more enlighteningly yet, just Being. Unfortunately, Being.Com is already taken by what appears to be some kind of foreign site and features, prominently, a busty woman in a nice bikini top on the front page. I can’t compete with that.

    So, I think I’ll just keep Being Tom and figure out some other path to enlightenment through the merging of my personalities with the undefinable “all.”

    And I think I’ll call you a “modern day philosopher.”

    I hope my trolls don’t become your trolls.

    Great work, you modern day philosopher, you!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thank you, Tom! It’s funny, but right after I typed the line about third-person reference, I thought of the title of your blog and wondered if you’d catch that. And of course you did. Worry not: titles of web pages, TV shows, movies, songs or books are all exempt from my semantic nit-pickery. My bone dry reservoir of self-esteem wants to argue with being labeled something as lofty as a modern day philosopher, but screw that. That was one of the greatest compliments I’ve ever been paid, so I’ll take it!

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes, great work indeed. I found this one on Tom’s blog so thank you Tom for reading and recognizing the value in it. Now it’s my turn to say sth smart, right? Ok, here you go…

      I am an over thinker, a pragmatic, always analyzing things. I guess, it’s in human nature to ask questions to which we do not always have adequate answers. Besides, talking to ourselves is essential. By this, I do not mean the third person crap or even worse the second one – you can do it, just stay positive … It’s something which introverts are more likely to do. And that’s the good but sad life of an intellectual, being constantly in the head and having long, and exhausting conversations with themselves, esp. at night with a drink in their hands. 🙂 (Hey night, here I come; don’t go yet, wait for me. I’ll just go fetch me some wine. No beer this time, Tom, so drop in some other day.)

      Anyway, where was I? Ye, I have been dealing precisely with this topic lately (inner dialogues, objectivity/subjectivity, masters, therapists, patients etc). As well as Nietzsche long before me. 🙂 He namely talks about ‘master–slave morality’. There are, he says, two kinds of morality: master morality values pride, authority, and power (where the consequences of our actions are either good or bad), whereas slave morality deals with modesty, humility, empathy, and generosity (i.e. actions based on good or evil intentions). And though they are at constant war, both are mandatory in institutions and society in general. The problem is, human nature is cruel so instead of the necessary hierarchy where respect for the authority and one another should be the imperative, we as a rule have very distinctive master-slave concepts. Hence, the totalitarian states.
      Oh, the inhumanity of it all!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Always happy to spread the curmudgeon around, Bojana. Glad you found this. Can I get a glass of wine for my troubles? 😏

        As for the content, DC said it best. A brilliantly, depressingly true synopsis.

        These last two days I’ve been struggling with something I did on Sunday; namely, lose my cool in an online debate with a couple of pseudo-pals (really, trolls). I pride myself on maintaining equilibrium. In my defense, my macho football team had just secured a winning season for the first time since the second time we invaded Iraq, and I had been celebrating. I might have been in a looser state. Not an excuse.

        The truth is I let my sense of self, the bad ego, get offended, and I lashed out. Then, I unceremoniously ended the debate, because of the backlash, and damn near dropped two (pseudo) pals (really, trolls). Forget that one of them is married to one of my best friends, and the other is a regular client, right?

        Luckily, Mrs C, and a couple of true friends, talked me down, in private.

        Why am I telling you this here?

        A man’s gotta vent, you know?

        This seemed as good a place as any, with all the talk of objectivity and selfless ego, to admit where I feel I failed. And you two enlightened souls seemed to be the best pals to admit that to.

        And, now, I will recede to the corner of the office and meditate before pouring that next cup of java.

        But I won’t apologize to the trolls.

        Don’t ask that of me. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Haha, then don’t. You know, there is one beer on the balcony, which is given the weather conditions in Munich, probably frozen by now. But I guess, the beer can never be too cold, right?

        As for your reaction, I totally understand it. I don’t always approve of it but the thing is I would have done exactly the same, being very impulsive and straightforward. I would probably regret it later but I would regret even more if I hadn’t said it.
        As long as our ego is not running the show all the time, it’s ok. If we constantly wanted to be in charge, it would make ego maniacs out of us, which isn’t your case. So, as long as you do things like this one, basically protecting your opinion, attitude, reputation, or quite literally personal interest, you shouldn’t be too hard on yourself (red: too sorry). Of course you feel bad, guilty maybe, but again you’re generally a decent human being and things like this cannot and did not leave you indifferent. You had to get it off your chest.

        More steam to let? Just go ahead. knew I should have bought that exhaust fan.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. You’re far from alone in occasionally losing your shit at the T***p minions, Tom. It’s infuriating — people who seem otherwise sane continuing to support an idiot dictator just causes cognitive dissonance in me. I have to try to dance the fine line between my meditative mindset and anger — anger normally being something I consider harmful seems in this case necessary. If we all just shrugged our shoulders over this, what would happen? It’s a challenging time, to say the least.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. What a post! I wrote your suggestions on a post-it and will report the results.

    I don’t know if you’ve read any Barry Long. He writes that thinking and talking that doesn’t have action as its intention is a forming of dreaming in words. According to him, action is the only reality, thinking for its own sake is equivalent to chewing cud, and chatting aimlessly is exchanging dreams with others. That seems similar to your suggestions, no?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you! I’m not familiar with Barry Long, but I will be in the near future just based on what you wrote. Your overview of his opinion on this isn’t just similar, but better — except maybe for the “thinking for its own sake…” part. Thinking is going to happen, no matter what. The idea is to get a better idea of where your thoughts are coming from and if they’re even your own. For some reason, whenever I come across a person who talks very little yet doesn’t seem to suffer from shyness or social anxiety, I assume that person is extremely wise.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s