Nice discussion, Slip. I think that everything said here is true and relative to a state and stage in our growth. There is a time in our maturity where it is natural and important to explore the not me aspect of who we are. This stage is usually adolescent. I think that much of our sense of morality is developed here. I look around and see many people who are and have been in this stage for quite some time, feeling comfortable with identifying the not me, often because it can trigger an anger, rage or feeling of justification that has become important to them. When this becomes second nature, we don't see ourselves operating in this way. It may take desire and introspection to move on to another stage in the development or the mature self. It will certainly take the ability to step back and witness how we operate, and consider further possibilities.
The responsibility of personal choice is much more clear when we identify with "I am." We can't really blame anyone else for our experience after stepping fully into this stage. It is a big leap, often associated with mid life, although I am honored to know many young adults who have developed a clear enough self concept to be operating at this stage. Here, we can choose to be multi dimensional, and it is introspection and participation in the greater experience of the world that expands our dimensionality. Don's idea of stepping into what we wish to become, and choosing our friends accordingly is an example of someone comfortable with their golden shadow, showing enough maturity to pursue the "I am" aspect of who we are. On Apr 25, 10:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I find that many people regardless of their social status, socio- > enconomic level or general upbringing sometimes identify with that > which they are not. Some call them a "wannabe". Whatever the label > whatever the alter ego it still remains the same, people relating with > that which they are not. > > Actor extraordinaire Daniel Day-Lewis once said, > "I came from the educated middle class but I identified with the > working classes. Those were the people I looked up to. The lads whose > fathers worked on the docks or in shipping yards or were shopkeepers. > I knew that I wasn't part of that world, but I was intrigued by it. > They had a different way of communicating. People who delight in > conversation are often using that as a means to not say what is on > their minds. When I became interested in theater, the work I admired > was being done by working-class writers. It was often about the > inarticulate. I later saw that same thing in Robert De Niro's early > work - it was the most sublime struggle of a man trying to express > himself. There was such poetry in that for me." > > Are we who we are or are we that which we identify with, or possibly a > combination of both? > > Personally I think that in someway we all identify with specific > things in the external world that we feel suits our personal desire, > want or need and then by adopting that identity we somehow learn to be > that which we identify with, unless it is beyond our capacity to > become that. > > Is that a distraction from who we "really" are? Is the constant > bombardment from multi-media a detriment to the development of the > true self? > > Do we waste much of our time in youth attempting to emulate that which > we are intrigued by only to realize later in life the reality of who > we really are? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
