![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
*muses* You know in Babylon 5, the Shadows and the Vorlons each had a keynote question that they asked everyone, to decide if they were worthy? The Shadows had "What do you want?" and the Vorlons had "Who are you?".
I never really understood the latter question from a philosophical standpoint. You know, one of the 'great mystery' questions, who are you really. I never quite got that, I think.
I never really understood the latter question from a philosophical standpoint. You know, one of the 'great mystery' questions, who are you really. I never quite got that, I think.
See, the answer changes depending on the circumstances in which it's asked, yes. Most people, when they ask "Who are you?" really mean "Who are you in relation to me?". As in, give me some pertinent information from which to decide how to interact with you. A name to call you by, an age or profession to judge how to act towards you. Something. Give me a guideline, please, to interact with you.
From the point of view of asking the question, though, to find out what the person thinks of themselves, the bits of their identity by which they define themselves ... Okay. Yes. I get that. That can tell you an awful lot about a person, what they value inside themselves, how they view themselves.
But in terms of the boil-it-down-to-the-base style of asking that question, where you whittle away all elaboration from the answers you get until the person either a) kills you just to shut you up, or b) reveals their base self ...
See. The only answer I can give to that question, personally, is:
Q: Who are you?
A: I'm me. Next question.
Now, you have to expand that back out, what does the person mean by 'me', but the way I usually see the who-are-you-as-great-mystery style questioning done, there's no real allowance for that. Identity doesn't really compress all that well, when you're trying to explain it to the person questioning you. I mean, it goes to one word, yes, but what that word means is probably not going to be all that clear unless the person asking happens to be telepathic or something.
When I say "I'm me", as the answer, I mean that the person I am is the person that feels what I feel, thinks what I think, wants what I want, fears what I fear. The self is the baseline thing that does all those other things. It's ... sort of an indivisible concept. In that someone else who feels, thinks, wants and fears exactly the same things I do is still not me, because the self is the thing behind those things that does those things, and that other person is not attached to my self. Which is ... a very wavy, hand-flappy concept to try and get across. Me is the thing that is, and those other things are the things I do. Me is a state, not an action. I am me, because me is no-one else. You are you, because you is no-one else.
If you strip me of memory, me is the thing that will make new ones. If you strip me of desire, me is the thing that will want new things. In each situation, me is the thing that decides how I will act. Me is the thing underneath all other things, the bit that views what surrounds it, and decides how it wants to approach it. Me doesn't have elaboration. Me is not human or straight or barbaric or beautiful, me is just the thing that is, the individual thing who is no-one else, who looks out on all those things. If there was no such thing as human, me would still be me. If there was no such thing as bodies, me would still be me.
Me is the self, the individual, who is no-one else. Me is not further divisible, because me is the base thing from which all other things derive. I am not me because I am such-and-such-a-thing. I am me because I am not you, nor anyone else either. Me is me, is only me. There is no other me, be they in all ways the same as me, because me is what makes me me, and they are what makes them them.
Of course, me is also other things. The me that I am is also things like asexual, aspie, a writer, etc. But as a definition of self, those things are surface tier. The base self is simply the thing that is you, where no-one else is you.
Which ... is not a useful answer to a question asked by someone else, really. Which is why I don't really understand it as a question in the reductionist style of asking. In that the only answer I can see, once you go all the way down, is "I'm me", and that's it.
Who I am is not a mystery. I am me, and everything else is a thing that comes afterwards, when what is me interacts with what is everything else. In that sense, the Shadows' "What do you want?" is a far more complicated question. What the self desires is far more complicated than just what the self is.
*muses* In terms of mysteries, a better question would maybe be "What is the self made of?", but that doesn't have a useful answer at our current level of knowledge, and trips over into things like souls and particles of consciousness and shit of that nature. Which is a mystery, and a valid question, but from my point of view not a particularly useful one, especially if you're asking me, because I don't know. So as a question it will not furnish you with a useful answer. Yet. *shrugs*
Basically, the thing that makes me different from someone else is that they are not me, and I am not them. Anything else is pretty much just a symptom. And that is nowhere near as useful a question as "Well, what are you going to do about it?", in terms of judging what a person is like in interaction with other things, like other people, or principles, or the universe at large.
*grins faintly* Which is what you get from me if you decide to get reductionist at me, apparently. You get a two-word answer, and a invitation to do whatever the hell you like with it. Heh. *shakes head*
From the point of view of asking the question, though, to find out what the person thinks of themselves, the bits of their identity by which they define themselves ... Okay. Yes. I get that. That can tell you an awful lot about a person, what they value inside themselves, how they view themselves.
But in terms of the boil-it-down-to-the-base style of asking that question, where you whittle away all elaboration from the answers you get until the person either a) kills you just to shut you up, or b) reveals their base self ...
See. The only answer I can give to that question, personally, is:
Q: Who are you?
A: I'm me. Next question.
Now, you have to expand that back out, what does the person mean by 'me', but the way I usually see the who-are-you-as-great-mystery style questioning done, there's no real allowance for that. Identity doesn't really compress all that well, when you're trying to explain it to the person questioning you. I mean, it goes to one word, yes, but what that word means is probably not going to be all that clear unless the person asking happens to be telepathic or something.
When I say "I'm me", as the answer, I mean that the person I am is the person that feels what I feel, thinks what I think, wants what I want, fears what I fear. The self is the baseline thing that does all those other things. It's ... sort of an indivisible concept. In that someone else who feels, thinks, wants and fears exactly the same things I do is still not me, because the self is the thing behind those things that does those things, and that other person is not attached to my self. Which is ... a very wavy, hand-flappy concept to try and get across. Me is the thing that is, and those other things are the things I do. Me is a state, not an action. I am me, because me is no-one else. You are you, because you is no-one else.
If you strip me of memory, me is the thing that will make new ones. If you strip me of desire, me is the thing that will want new things. In each situation, me is the thing that decides how I will act. Me is the thing underneath all other things, the bit that views what surrounds it, and decides how it wants to approach it. Me doesn't have elaboration. Me is not human or straight or barbaric or beautiful, me is just the thing that is, the individual thing who is no-one else, who looks out on all those things. If there was no such thing as human, me would still be me. If there was no such thing as bodies, me would still be me.
Me is the self, the individual, who is no-one else. Me is not further divisible, because me is the base thing from which all other things derive. I am not me because I am such-and-such-a-thing. I am me because I am not you, nor anyone else either. Me is me, is only me. There is no other me, be they in all ways the same as me, because me is what makes me me, and they are what makes them them.
Of course, me is also other things. The me that I am is also things like asexual, aspie, a writer, etc. But as a definition of self, those things are surface tier. The base self is simply the thing that is you, where no-one else is you.
Which ... is not a useful answer to a question asked by someone else, really. Which is why I don't really understand it as a question in the reductionist style of asking. In that the only answer I can see, once you go all the way down, is "I'm me", and that's it.
Who I am is not a mystery. I am me, and everything else is a thing that comes afterwards, when what is me interacts with what is everything else. In that sense, the Shadows' "What do you want?" is a far more complicated question. What the self desires is far more complicated than just what the self is.
*muses* In terms of mysteries, a better question would maybe be "What is the self made of?", but that doesn't have a useful answer at our current level of knowledge, and trips over into things like souls and particles of consciousness and shit of that nature. Which is a mystery, and a valid question, but from my point of view not a particularly useful one, especially if you're asking me, because I don't know. So as a question it will not furnish you with a useful answer. Yet. *shrugs*
Basically, the thing that makes me different from someone else is that they are not me, and I am not them. Anything else is pretty much just a symptom. And that is nowhere near as useful a question as "Well, what are you going to do about it?", in terms of judging what a person is like in interaction with other things, like other people, or principles, or the universe at large.
*grins faintly* Which is what you get from me if you decide to get reductionist at me, apparently. You get a two-word answer, and a invitation to do whatever the hell you like with it. Heh. *shakes head*
Tags: