Who are you?

[WampusCat]

This is what I put in the About Me section of Facebook:

"I am all these things, but they do not define me: Mother. Child. Widow. Editor. Spiritual director. Writer. Celtic harp player. Retreat leader. Crazy cat lady. Thinker. Feeler. Friend. Target for the irate. Receiver of abundant blessings. Wise woman. Silly girl. Baby boomer. Beader. Recovering pack rat. Dreamer. Composer. Preacher. Doodler. Singer. Teacher. Everyday mystic."

The most important phrase, though, is "but they do not define me." I am something more than my roles, my hobbies, my work, my successes or failures. To some extent those are choices of where to invest my life. What I am is the one who chooses.

[Frelga]

I came across a New Agey book once that had this excercise, which struck me as revealing at the time.

First, notice your thoughts. What are they, what prompted them, are they productive?

Then, notice your body. How is it? Does it need to be fed, rested, stretched?

Now, notice your feelings. Are they sad or happy? Why?

Finally - what is it that did the noticing? What oversees your thoughts, emotions and physical sensations yet is none of these things?

I am the bit that does the noticing. I am the Me of me.

[anthriel]

I love that quote, too, tinwë. In fact, anthy and I had a cool internet twin moment over it not that long ago.

One of my happier facebook moments.

Finally - what is it that did the noticing? What oversees your thoughts, emotions and physical sensations yet is none of these things?


I am the bit that does the noticing. I am the Me of me.

I really like this, Frelga. I think it's an interesting description...

I always wonder about the people with Alzheimer's and such, though... if someone has lost the ability to do the internal overseeing as is described here, are they no longer a me? Are they still them?

Sort of a vexing question, overall, Miss Laurie.

[axordil]

Current neurology suggests the executive function is not really conscious. We react consciously to decisions we've already made, sometimes fractions of a second later, and provide reasons to ourselves and others why we made them.

Which makes sense: if we cogitated, even briefly, over the moment-to-moment decision making needed to survive, we'd all be dead in traffic accidents by now.

[Primula Baggins]

What about those who haven't gained it yet? Newborn babies, for example. They don't notice their own thoughts, or make decisions, but any mother could tell you that they are "themselves" from day one, different from siblings in ways that get more obvious as they grow but that can be noticeable in their first few hours of life. I would say there is a "me" in there; they just don't know it yet. And at the other end of life, they may forget.

Which I guess is arguing that memory and selfhood are separate things.

[Frelga]

Prim, that left me with an image of a little baby self strapping itself into the cockpit of an infant body, trying to get the hang of all the controls. You know how babies at about 5 weeks realize that they actually control that amazing thing with five little attachments, and just lay there turning their hands over and over and staring at them move? The self, the me-of-me is there, but it has not yet learned how to express itself with the tools that it has. For the most part, infants function on the purely physical level.

And on the other end, I think one of the most heartbreaking things about watching a loved one succumb is the realization that they are not themselves anymore. Some go back to that physical level as they age.

Now, I don't think of that me-of-me bit in entirely metaphysical terms. I don't believe it's fixed in stone, or divorced from the body. Everything goes both ways.

[axordil]

I think memory and personality are related but distinct, in that our experience can shape and refine the temperament I believe we're born with. As to whether losing the memories of the experience changes the personality, I can't say.

I do know my father-in-law's personality changed after his brain malady and surgery, not enough that a casual observer would catch, but enough that everyone who had really known him agreed on it. I also have a niece who was never the same person after a motorcycle accident and coma, from which she recovered. She was less headstrong *badumching* but also more withdrawn; she went from being extroverted to being introverted and stayed that way.

[RoseMorninStar]

Who am I? Good question. And a difficult one to answer.. but I know it when I see it.. or feel it.. or hear or taste it.

There are times when I hear a song.. and it speaks to such a deep part of my being that it is difficult to separate myself (who I am) from it. The same for a particular scene or other visual, such as a work of art.. or certain beautiful well-written words. Raspberries and chocolate. And, while I understand that a mother is what I am.. I do believe it is also part of who I am. I don't think I can separate myself from that. I know what I was like before I was a mother.. and I was different.. not the same who. So, I definitely agree that part of who we are is something so quintessentially us..but also sum the of our experiences, that comes from I don't know where. Some of my 'who'ness stays the same.. some changes with time.. like my favorite color or becoming a mother.

I think who we are is the sum of what we love.. and what we do not- our passions, positive & negative. When someones see something that reminds them of us.. a doorway, a landscape, a tool, a piece of well made pottery, a flower, or they hear a song that reminds them of us.. those are 'who' we are.. there is something quintessential about us that can be defined (not without some difficulty) but we know it when we see it.. hear it, feel it, taste it..

[narya]

Raspberries and chocolate.....

(shakes self)

The answer is... all of you are right, and I appreciate getting to know "you" better by your answers.

When I think of who RoseMorninStar is, I recall the person I met at the Chicago moot. Yet I also knew you as the mood induced by your beautiful avatar, and the thoughtful words you posted in this site, and the way you interacted with my posts and others' posts. None of which I can even begin to describe to someone else. But I "know" enough of you that when I read your post, I'm not surprised by the insights or the language (delighted maybe, but not blindsighted). I can say the same for the others in this thread, some of whom I've mooted with, some of whom I've only met here, or seen through others' eyes and camera lenses. Those of you with facebook accounts show me another facet, and even your friends' reactions are telling.

I'm still pondering the original question. Who are you? To start with, I consider "What are you?" and why does that matter? When I first meet a person, I classify that person by what he or she is - by nationality, gender, ethnic group, age, socio-economic level, political bent, sexual preference, clothing choice, use of language, education level, parental status, job, religion, body art, ability to spell , etc. - I consciously or subconsciously put that person in my big Venn diagram in my head, and can then make predictions about that person. It is harder to do so when I only know the person on a message board, or over the phone (I do phone crisis counseling), or by email (with colleagues I've never met in person).

Yes, that kind of pigeon-holing is prejudice, but it is what we all do to some extent to interact in society. The location in the Venn diagram is a starting place. For some, it is safer to leave the person there with all the other people of "that ilk". And safer to stay only with familiar ilks. From me, I like to get to know the person, and have my understanding of the person refined. The purpose of that getting to know someone is to begin understand how that person reacts to the world, and to me, because I don't like to be around an unpredictable person, and because it is fascinating to see the world through another set of eyes, and because it brings us closer to kindred spirits. Eventually, that person holds a unique place in my mind, and becomes a "who" instead of a "what".

I attach several labels to that unique set of attributes - a name, an avatar, a screen name, a face, a set of body language (which for me is easier to recall than the name or face). Some people I remember as "Rover's mom" or "the front desk gal at XXXX" when their name escapes me, but still they hold a unique niche in my brain, a unique, unfinished painting.

But that's just me.

[Frelga]

Warning: Biblical reference ahead.

I was at a Shabbat teaching service geared for my son's age group. The text was Lech-lecha, Genesis 12:1 - 17:27. The first verse, in King James translation, goes:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee.

The Rabbi said that God's words to Abram (still Abram 1.0, not yet renamed), translated into English as "get thee," or "come, rise," or such, in Hebrew are "lech-lecha" - literally, "go to you." In one sense, God is saying to Abram, go to yourself, find yourself as yourself, apart from things that had defined you, such as customs of your country, your family and your peer group.

In one sense, the entire point of this whole trip is to "go to yourself"and answer the question "Who you are."

The Rabbi also pointed out that Abram is supposed to be 75 at this point, and he's just now getting started on that journey.

[nerdanel]

I love Lech-lecha. I sent your summation of the paragraph to a Jewish friend of mine my age, who (despite being a brilliant PhD student) is worried about being behind the curve in figuring himself out.

I think also that this is a perfect example of how it's possible to derive meaning from a religious book as an atheist and of what I have been doing for the past few years when I attend Jewish services. Where I see "the LORD said," I read that to mean that Abram's own conscience/"voice inside his head" spoke to him, and he acted on it in a way that exemplifies the human search for truth and growth. He may sometimes have gotten it deeply and repugnantly wrong, in my view (see contemplated sacrifice of Issac), but he also stumbled upon some essential truths. So I can find meaning in this exhortation to "go to yourself" (after all, a critical thing for each of us to do!), and appreciate sharing in a tradition that was founded on the importance of that very thing, while believing that the exhortation was ultimately of human rather than supernatural origin.

[Frelga]

Nel, I'll tell the Rabbi that you liked his drash. Have you had a chance to look into Mordecai Kaplan's writing? His ideas of God as collective conscience may be interesting to you. (I think it's Kaplan, if you are interested I could check)

There's a post I keep meaning to write that addresses some of the points you made, but it's one of those "a week's answer" things. In essence I agree with you. Even if it were somehow proven that the God does not exist or does not care about us living morally, there would still be left four thousand years of trying to figure out how best to live as if God does.

[vison]

Nel, I'll tell the Rabbi that you liked his drash. Have you had a chance to look into Mordecai Kaplan's writing? His ideas of God as collective conscience may be interesting to you. (I think it's Kaplan, if you are interested I could check)

There's a post I keep meaning to write that addresses some of the points you made, but it's one of those "a week's answer" things. In essence I agree with you. Even if it were somehow proven that the God does not exist or does not care about us living morally, there would still be left four thousand years of trying to figure out how best to live as if God does.

The four thousand (or forty thousand, for that matter) years would still exist. In no sense were they "wasted" or wrong.

But . . . do we need a god to care about us? Can't we aim to live good lives for any other reason?

[Primula Baggins]

But . . . do we need a god to care about us? Can't we aim to live good lives for any other reason?

Of course we can. Even believers can, and do.

Living a good life only to please God, without considering any other reason to do so, is to be a little like a toddler who doesn't touch the stove because Mommy said no really loud. As a child grows, she learns that there's a reason for the rule beyond "This is what Mommy wants." She learns to generalize from particular rules or kinds of rules to more widely apply the reasons behind the rules to other choices in life. Her mother is still there and still loves her, but the daughter's whole life isn't about meeting her mother's expectations or following the letter of her teachings. At least, not if she's a healthy person.

[RoseMorninStar]

Anyway.. getting back to the topic.. when I hear 'Who are you' to sum it up in a word it would be 'essence'. What is the essence of a person.. which seldom can be summed up in one word, but is a conglomerate of all those things that make us tick as individuals.. our passions and loves, the things we despise, the things that make us go "wugga-wugga" (love that term vison!)

I would, for example include 'words' or 'wordsmith' in a description of axordil, for example.. 'What' he is, is a writer.. but it is also part of who he is.. a lover of words.

In studying art there are several disciplines. For example, there is Art Nouveau and Art Deco.. they are of the same era.. they share some of the same history.. but the former is about organic nature-based curvilinear lines and the love of things hand-made, a rejection of sorts of the machine age and part of the 'arts & crafts' movement.. and the later is a love of clean lines and a passion for a machine ethic and all things modern and new. Those distinctions make it what it is.. and what we love/hate/are indifferent to, makes us what we are.

[narya]

I would, for example include 'words' or 'wordsmith' in a description of axordil, for example.. 'What' he is, is a writer.. but it is also part of who he is.. a lover of words.

And I am an engineer, whether I'm employed or not. It is a way of seeing the world as a fascinating puzzle and a challenge, rather than an overwhelmingly indifferent, threatening, or evil place.

[RoseMorninStar]

I would, for example include 'words' or 'wordsmith' in a description of axordil, for example.. 'What' he is, is a writer.. but it is also part of who he is.. a lover of words.

And I am an engineer, whether I'm employed or not. It is a way of seeing the world as a fascinating puzzle and a challenge, rather than an overwhelmingly indifferent, threatening, or evil place.

Exactly!

I believe I 'am' an artist.. and something of an inventor.. I'm not sure that is the right word, exactly, perhaps 'inventive' would be better.. even if I never create another piece of art.. it is part of how I view the world.. it is who I am.

[Frelga]

Rose, my LJ tagline is, "My life makes so much more sense if I think of myself as a writer."

Vison, no, it doesn't need to come from God. Big-h Humanists (to quote Ax) manage quite well.

[Folca]

There are times when what we are reflects a sense of who we are, though I don't believe work is the only context of that. Some it is the hobby, some the job, some a status (parent, God's child, etc).


Who I am is most reflected in my quote section: I have always known deep down that my purpose was to be ready and willing to be available to make a difference to another person, be that difference large or small. I have had small validations of that yearning, but hope to survive my greatest challenges to come, mostly out of curiousity about the outcome.

I am a tool and a servant. I know that problably falls under the "what" in most peoples view, but I don't believe WHOEVER/WHATEVER set this world in motion is invested in the idividuals, only the larger outcome. No superior being is micromanaging my life and assigning little tasks and trials.

But there are themes that call to my very soul: sacrifice and service, camaradrie and defender, protector and shield to innocents.

Very dramatic sounding, but it is all drudgery work until the few seconds it comes to a head. I am who I am inspired to be by those themes that have always been my internal compass.

[narya]

Folca,

We may not see eye to eye in some of the other threads, but what you said here resonates very strongly with me.