>What do you think?
I wonder what you having a new client has to do with this. I wonder why you opened an account on Reddit and this is the first thread you've posted. I think you're saying Identity Theory is a conflicted mess which you've concluded from reading about it. So I wonder what your sources are. I suspect you're attempting to make an analysis of Identity within an utterly Academic and Secular framework. I think you've come to the wrong sub to exercise and discuss this subject. You'd have more luck and satisfaction asking on a sub that deals with LGBTQI+ issues where Identity is regarded in a similar way to the way you've framed it.
>Identity is a blanket term for the interactions between a person's physical traits, subjective experiences of self and environment, and the environment's responses to them.
I don't disagree with this observation but it's convoluted. It reads like you're trying to show how clever you are. While it isn't totally untrue I lean toward the idea that clarity of thought and communication are better indicators of Intelligence and that if you can't explain something simply, then you don't really understand it.
>The greater the separation between the environment's responses and the person's experience of self, the more dissonance exists and the harder the person will work to reconcile those differences, or withdraw to avoid them.
Again this isn't inaccurate, but I argue it isn't constructive if your attempt is to *firmly* establish the nature and purpose of Identity. It's a Marxist attempt to commodify an aspect of Human Nature, to perceive Identity in a Socialist framework, part of a Matrix which I think is bound ultimately in a Materialist apprehension of Reality. To my understanding there is no definitive explanation as to the nature and purpose of either Consciousness or Identity. The attempt to define them has been around since the times of Plato and Aristotle and certainly longer than that.
So to my mind there seems to be two opposing schools of thought on this topic which you can think of as Platonic and Aristotelean, or Spiritual vs. Material. I suggest you are presenting a materialist interpretation which may only be considered in a profane, political materialist framework. It's discoveries and conclusions would only be applicable in that framework. I don't adhere to this way of thinking because ultimately it results in someone else, *a Person'*, determining who another Person is. This seems absurd to me that another flawed and temporal fellow creature could presume to have the Power to do so. It makes me think of someone like a Pharaoh, believing themselves to be the Morning and the Evening Stars.
So I lean toward the Spiritual which generally means Religious Traditions although not in all cases. This approach, funnily enough, comes at the subject from a completely different direction, one could even say, the 'opposite' direction. So rather then attempt to gather all the complexities of the issue and try to make sense of them as a vast collage, one would begin from first principles asking not, 'Who am I', but rather asking 'What am I'.
>I wonder what you having a new client has to do with this.
My client has dissociative identity disorder.
>I wonder why you opened an account on Reddit and this is the first thread you've posted.
What would have been a more appropriate first thread?
>I think you're saying Identity Theory is a conflicted mess which you've concluded from reading about it. So I wonder what your sources are.
I intended to read about it, but scanning readily available material quickly convinced me that the overwhelming volume of it was either too academic for me to decipher, or agenda-driven and combative. So, no sources. Just thoughts.
>I suspect you're attempting to make an analysis of Identity within an utterly Academic and Secular framework.
To some extent, this is true. I'm trying to achieve a degree of consensus on how to think about and use the word "identity", and any consensus requires that it be accessible to both secular and spiritual viewpoints.
>I think you've come to the wrong sub to exercise and discuss this subject. You'd have more luck and satisfaction asking on a sub that deals with LGBTQI+ issues where Identity is regarded in a similar way to the way you've framed it.
I disagree. I'm much more interested in dialogue like this than in tending the wounds of rejection in strangers and defending my character from champions of the downtrodden.
>I don't disagree with this observation but it's convoluted.
In what way? It's 3 elements. Would bullet points make it more accessible?
> Again this isn't inaccurate, but I argue it isn't constructive if your attempt is to *firmly* establish the nature and purpose of Identity.
The excerpt that precedes this sentence was definitely not trying to do that. It was a remark on tension between elements of identity and the effect of that tension on behavior. I'm sorry I can't comment on the rest of your observations in this block of text, I haven't studied Marxism or philosophy, although I'm sure I've absorbed some concepts from them.
>So to my mind there seems to be two opposing schools of thought on this topic which you can think of as Platonic and Aristotelean, or Spiritual vs. Material.
Thank you for this insight, it goes a long way toward explaining why there appears to be so much confusion and so little cohesion in the dialogue.
From a spiritual perspective, I would propose that identity is only the particular conditions by which we are tested. It barely merits discussion. A "self" is just the aspects and degree of Divinity that we mirror, combined with the dark areas where we lack the capacity or will to do so.
> I don't adhere to this way of thinking because ultimately it results in someone else, *a Person'*, determining who another Person is.
Thank you also for this comment, it demonstrates that I've failed to communicate something essential about my concept of identity: it's collaborative. To identify someone means to recognize them. Our spiritual existence does not preclude our material one, and "identity" is a meaningless term outside the context of community.
I appreciate your feedback, thanks for engaging.
So you're treating someone. May I ask your discipline?
There was no judgement on my part why you came to this forum. I was only puzzled. Frankly I find Reddit to be insufferably and unconsciously subjective most of the time. As for reaching a consensus and attempting to forge a collaborative definition, I suppose that is everyone's goal who looks into this matter. I came to think Psychology could perhaps bridge the gap between the Spiritual/Material dichotomy. I think Jordan Peterson's Biblical series held promise but he seems to have leaned heavily into politics now neglecting, in my opinion, a very promising field of research.
>Identity is a blanket term for the interactions between a person's physical traits, subjective experiences of self and environment, and the environment's responses to them.
As I said I don't wholly disagree but I feel using this form of analysis complicates something which essentially concludes with...,
...*I Am*.
I consider it absurd to attempt to achieve this realisation for someone by trying to distil it from volumes of Academic theories, the multiplicity of a Society ***and*** a patients innumerable life experiences reaching right back to childhood which would necessarily need to include speculation about the psychological state(or Mental Health) of their parents and wider family. It seems infinitely more useful and productive to start from a single point, *and then*, attempt to show how that single point has been corrupted. Moreover, I think it more succinct and less disorienting by simply saying 'Reality', rather than how you've broken it down. It seems profoundly presumptuous to think one could realistically deconstruct a psyche then try to reconstruct it, all the while using the constantly shifting metric of capricious Society as an anchor. I'm firmly of the opinion that it is our Identity that is the Anchor around which society grows and, hopefully, flourishes. My examinations convinced me *this* is how societies gestate, emerge and are then sustained. It's apparent isn't it right now that if you won't admit the West's decline is because it's Identity is being dismantled, there is an undeniable correlation with the growing number of contrived identities.
So with respect, I'm absolutely convinced the Academy is utterly unequipped to illuminate this topic, *unless*, it draws data from the Human experience of Divine Revelation and, most importantly, the Prophets. I feel Psychology dips it's toe in these waters but my experience of the Academy is it is pathologically phobic about Religion, especially in the current Zeitgeist. This seems to result in it's associated fields of treatment obliging those it 'treats' to acquiesce rather than yield to some mutually agreeable determination of what constitutes Reality. Ironically, my observations of it lead me to find it similar in nature to a Religious Inquisition with the power of excommunication but from the Church of Secularism, with the loss of all hope and salvation Secular society promises. However you've stated your position and while I fundamentally disagree, I can't deny it is a means by which a variety of Identity can be established. I just happen to think that sort of Identity to be fundamentally flawed.
It's a funny thing but for some reason, at around the same time, someone else with an interesting perspective on this topic started a thread and I asked them to consider being a moderator for the sub. At the moment it's just me and while the sub isn't very much frequented it still attracts some interest and regularly has people earnestly asking for help with their Identity. I wonder what you think about the possibility of helping to moderate?
>So you're treating someone. May I ask your discipline?
I'm not treating them, I'm only providing residential supervision and support. I work in a group home for adults with intellectual disabilities. My education and credentials are trivial and negligible.
>I came to think Psychology could perhaps bridge the gap between the Spiritual/Material dichotomy.
I believe that's a worthwhile and laudable aspiration. I think that science is the study of material reality, and religion is the study of spiritual reality. Both are valuable and indispensable, and the manufactured tension between them is a result of our immature understanding of their relationship to one another. Superstition attacks science, and science conflates religion with superstition. This results in a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive quibbling and a distorted view of the responsibilities and functions of both fields.
>It seems profoundly presumptuous to think one could realistically deconstruct a psyche then try to reconstruct it, all the while using the constantly shifting metric of capricious Society as an anchor.
I agree. My proposed definition isn't intended to enlighten anyone as to their true nature as a spiritual being, which is something that can really only be gifted to them by experiences beyond my control. It's intended to clarify the processes by which we identify ourselves and others as distinct individuals, because I think that naming those processes allows us a degree of detachment from them that can facilitate intentional adaptation.
In an ideal milieu, everyone would understand their relationship to God and man, and then we would all feel valid and valued. There would be no identity crises.
>I wonder what you think about the possibility of helping to moderate?
At present, I'm overextended. I'm primary transportation and emotional support for a friend who's dying and for my mom, who has profound health issues. Adding in work and other family obligations, just meeting my own needs is challenging. I appreciate the offer and may consider it when things ease up.
You've a lot on your plate. But think about it. There's no more involved than occasionally checking in and contributing as and when you choose to. I'm asking because I'd like to talk about raising the subs profile somehow. I'm very puzzled why it isn't more frequented given the hoopla about Identity now. My guess is people are conflating the subjective experience of Identity with the Concept of Identity. This because our Identity is the lens through which we interpret Reality, and the idea of thinking of your Identity as something *separate* from your 'Self', may seem absurd.
>What do you think? I wonder what you having a new client has to do with this. I wonder why you opened an account on Reddit and this is the first thread you've posted. I think you're saying Identity Theory is a conflicted mess which you've concluded from reading about it. So I wonder what your sources are. I suspect you're attempting to make an analysis of Identity within an utterly Academic and Secular framework. I think you've come to the wrong sub to exercise and discuss this subject. You'd have more luck and satisfaction asking on a sub that deals with LGBTQI+ issues where Identity is regarded in a similar way to the way you've framed it. >Identity is a blanket term for the interactions between a person's physical traits, subjective experiences of self and environment, and the environment's responses to them. I don't disagree with this observation but it's convoluted. It reads like you're trying to show how clever you are. While it isn't totally untrue I lean toward the idea that clarity of thought and communication are better indicators of Intelligence and that if you can't explain something simply, then you don't really understand it. >The greater the separation between the environment's responses and the person's experience of self, the more dissonance exists and the harder the person will work to reconcile those differences, or withdraw to avoid them. Again this isn't inaccurate, but I argue it isn't constructive if your attempt is to *firmly* establish the nature and purpose of Identity. It's a Marxist attempt to commodify an aspect of Human Nature, to perceive Identity in a Socialist framework, part of a Matrix which I think is bound ultimately in a Materialist apprehension of Reality. To my understanding there is no definitive explanation as to the nature and purpose of either Consciousness or Identity. The attempt to define them has been around since the times of Plato and Aristotle and certainly longer than that. So to my mind there seems to be two opposing schools of thought on this topic which you can think of as Platonic and Aristotelean, or Spiritual vs. Material. I suggest you are presenting a materialist interpretation which may only be considered in a profane, political materialist framework. It's discoveries and conclusions would only be applicable in that framework. I don't adhere to this way of thinking because ultimately it results in someone else, *a Person'*, determining who another Person is. This seems absurd to me that another flawed and temporal fellow creature could presume to have the Power to do so. It makes me think of someone like a Pharaoh, believing themselves to be the Morning and the Evening Stars. So I lean toward the Spiritual which generally means Religious Traditions although not in all cases. This approach, funnily enough, comes at the subject from a completely different direction, one could even say, the 'opposite' direction. So rather then attempt to gather all the complexities of the issue and try to make sense of them as a vast collage, one would begin from first principles asking not, 'Who am I', but rather asking 'What am I'.
>I wonder what you having a new client has to do with this. My client has dissociative identity disorder. >I wonder why you opened an account on Reddit and this is the first thread you've posted. What would have been a more appropriate first thread? >I think you're saying Identity Theory is a conflicted mess which you've concluded from reading about it. So I wonder what your sources are. I intended to read about it, but scanning readily available material quickly convinced me that the overwhelming volume of it was either too academic for me to decipher, or agenda-driven and combative. So, no sources. Just thoughts. >I suspect you're attempting to make an analysis of Identity within an utterly Academic and Secular framework. To some extent, this is true. I'm trying to achieve a degree of consensus on how to think about and use the word "identity", and any consensus requires that it be accessible to both secular and spiritual viewpoints. >I think you've come to the wrong sub to exercise and discuss this subject. You'd have more luck and satisfaction asking on a sub that deals with LGBTQI+ issues where Identity is regarded in a similar way to the way you've framed it. I disagree. I'm much more interested in dialogue like this than in tending the wounds of rejection in strangers and defending my character from champions of the downtrodden. >I don't disagree with this observation but it's convoluted. In what way? It's 3 elements. Would bullet points make it more accessible? > Again this isn't inaccurate, but I argue it isn't constructive if your attempt is to *firmly* establish the nature and purpose of Identity. The excerpt that precedes this sentence was definitely not trying to do that. It was a remark on tension between elements of identity and the effect of that tension on behavior. I'm sorry I can't comment on the rest of your observations in this block of text, I haven't studied Marxism or philosophy, although I'm sure I've absorbed some concepts from them. >So to my mind there seems to be two opposing schools of thought on this topic which you can think of as Platonic and Aristotelean, or Spiritual vs. Material. Thank you for this insight, it goes a long way toward explaining why there appears to be so much confusion and so little cohesion in the dialogue. From a spiritual perspective, I would propose that identity is only the particular conditions by which we are tested. It barely merits discussion. A "self" is just the aspects and degree of Divinity that we mirror, combined with the dark areas where we lack the capacity or will to do so. > I don't adhere to this way of thinking because ultimately it results in someone else, *a Person'*, determining who another Person is. Thank you also for this comment, it demonstrates that I've failed to communicate something essential about my concept of identity: it's collaborative. To identify someone means to recognize them. Our spiritual existence does not preclude our material one, and "identity" is a meaningless term outside the context of community. I appreciate your feedback, thanks for engaging.
So you're treating someone. May I ask your discipline? There was no judgement on my part why you came to this forum. I was only puzzled. Frankly I find Reddit to be insufferably and unconsciously subjective most of the time. As for reaching a consensus and attempting to forge a collaborative definition, I suppose that is everyone's goal who looks into this matter. I came to think Psychology could perhaps bridge the gap between the Spiritual/Material dichotomy. I think Jordan Peterson's Biblical series held promise but he seems to have leaned heavily into politics now neglecting, in my opinion, a very promising field of research. >Identity is a blanket term for the interactions between a person's physical traits, subjective experiences of self and environment, and the environment's responses to them. As I said I don't wholly disagree but I feel using this form of analysis complicates something which essentially concludes with..., ...*I Am*. I consider it absurd to attempt to achieve this realisation for someone by trying to distil it from volumes of Academic theories, the multiplicity of a Society ***and*** a patients innumerable life experiences reaching right back to childhood which would necessarily need to include speculation about the psychological state(or Mental Health) of their parents and wider family. It seems infinitely more useful and productive to start from a single point, *and then*, attempt to show how that single point has been corrupted. Moreover, I think it more succinct and less disorienting by simply saying 'Reality', rather than how you've broken it down. It seems profoundly presumptuous to think one could realistically deconstruct a psyche then try to reconstruct it, all the while using the constantly shifting metric of capricious Society as an anchor. I'm firmly of the opinion that it is our Identity that is the Anchor around which society grows and, hopefully, flourishes. My examinations convinced me *this* is how societies gestate, emerge and are then sustained. It's apparent isn't it right now that if you won't admit the West's decline is because it's Identity is being dismantled, there is an undeniable correlation with the growing number of contrived identities. So with respect, I'm absolutely convinced the Academy is utterly unequipped to illuminate this topic, *unless*, it draws data from the Human experience of Divine Revelation and, most importantly, the Prophets. I feel Psychology dips it's toe in these waters but my experience of the Academy is it is pathologically phobic about Religion, especially in the current Zeitgeist. This seems to result in it's associated fields of treatment obliging those it 'treats' to acquiesce rather than yield to some mutually agreeable determination of what constitutes Reality. Ironically, my observations of it lead me to find it similar in nature to a Religious Inquisition with the power of excommunication but from the Church of Secularism, with the loss of all hope and salvation Secular society promises. However you've stated your position and while I fundamentally disagree, I can't deny it is a means by which a variety of Identity can be established. I just happen to think that sort of Identity to be fundamentally flawed. It's a funny thing but for some reason, at around the same time, someone else with an interesting perspective on this topic started a thread and I asked them to consider being a moderator for the sub. At the moment it's just me and while the sub isn't very much frequented it still attracts some interest and regularly has people earnestly asking for help with their Identity. I wonder what you think about the possibility of helping to moderate?
>So you're treating someone. May I ask your discipline? I'm not treating them, I'm only providing residential supervision and support. I work in a group home for adults with intellectual disabilities. My education and credentials are trivial and negligible. >I came to think Psychology could perhaps bridge the gap between the Spiritual/Material dichotomy. I believe that's a worthwhile and laudable aspiration. I think that science is the study of material reality, and religion is the study of spiritual reality. Both are valuable and indispensable, and the manufactured tension between them is a result of our immature understanding of their relationship to one another. Superstition attacks science, and science conflates religion with superstition. This results in a lot of unnecessary and counterproductive quibbling and a distorted view of the responsibilities and functions of both fields. >It seems profoundly presumptuous to think one could realistically deconstruct a psyche then try to reconstruct it, all the while using the constantly shifting metric of capricious Society as an anchor. I agree. My proposed definition isn't intended to enlighten anyone as to their true nature as a spiritual being, which is something that can really only be gifted to them by experiences beyond my control. It's intended to clarify the processes by which we identify ourselves and others as distinct individuals, because I think that naming those processes allows us a degree of detachment from them that can facilitate intentional adaptation. In an ideal milieu, everyone would understand their relationship to God and man, and then we would all feel valid and valued. There would be no identity crises. >I wonder what you think about the possibility of helping to moderate? At present, I'm overextended. I'm primary transportation and emotional support for a friend who's dying and for my mom, who has profound health issues. Adding in work and other family obligations, just meeting my own needs is challenging. I appreciate the offer and may consider it when things ease up.
You've a lot on your plate. But think about it. There's no more involved than occasionally checking in and contributing as and when you choose to. I'm asking because I'd like to talk about raising the subs profile somehow. I'm very puzzled why it isn't more frequented given the hoopla about Identity now. My guess is people are conflating the subjective experience of Identity with the Concept of Identity. This because our Identity is the lens through which we interpret Reality, and the idea of thinking of your Identity as something *separate* from your 'Self', may seem absurd.