Automaton's by social subscription? Well put. All the different input you suggest makes it really hard for anyone to truly be them self. It might be impossible to be totally free from affectation by Society. Even primitive natives are affected by their Society.
Even the oddballs, though aware of the Society's influence, still do go with the flow. I think they can shrug off the negative impetus with the firm self grounding. I think the self has to be found within, through intent, and then one would create the 'identified self'. peace & Love On Apr 26, 8:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Automaton's by social subscription? I would guess that there is some > degree of identity that is dictated by social norms. Then there is > the cultural norm as well in which a child's identity is most often > prearranged without room for personal development. Toss in ethnicity > and you have nearly obliterated the chance for a person to seek > personal identity from within. > > On Apr 25, 10:32 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think most of the people of the world are automatons. Their identity > > is what they're 'supposed to be'. > > The wannabes are obviously driven by something other than the unique > > self. > > I believe conformity is the purpose of the multi-media. > > > The oddballs (like some of the people around here) who do recognize > > their 'self', I would think are the 'identified self'. The true self > > set the purpose to which the Life force was directed. That which they > > are is that which they chose to be. > > > peace & Love > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
