On Identity - thy neighbour and thyself

Paradoxically, it is only from the love of our neighbors that we truly learn how to learn how to love ourselves.

The conceptual aspects of personal representations and interpersonal relationships are the two key factors of our sense of social identity. The first concept of personal representations, or Gesellschaft as postulated by Tonnies, touches on our need of integration and fulfillment of needs. The second concept of interpersonal relationships, or Germeinschaft, states that our need of social integration is for membership and shared emotional connection- with these being the partial concepts of love.

Of course when I speak of social identity, I do not merely restrict it to the mere involvement of the group and the ‘community’; in this context, I would wish to expand this concept of social identity to the identities that are conferred to ourselves when we partake in society in general. From the working mother to the basketball team player, from the retro-junkie to the nineteen year old girlfriend, these ‘roles’ that we play are all part of the social identity that has been conferred to us by others- be it a child, a boyfriend, a basketball team or our society.

If we are to take a step further back, we can see that when we be that mother or that basketball player, that junkie or that girlfriend, it is ultimately for our personal interests and for love of the community (or just the love of the other individual). In the previous posts I have argued that love is indispensible even if involvement in the community is seemingly for personal interests. From there we allude that the love actually stems from the love of the community, or the love of one’s neighbor.

What does this lead to? I do not intend to be idealistic about such issues, but the conclusions are as follows:

We are who we are (personal identity) and who we are perceived to be (social identity).
Love is the primary reason (why) and action mechanism (what) of our social identity.
From our social identity we reaffirm our personal identities and learn about ourselves.
Hence, from the love of our neighbors we learn to love ourselves.

But as for today, we must understand that it would be irrelevant to dwell excessively into the order of appearance of love. Indeed, it is initially from our identification and emotional connection with others we get to distinguish the objective ideals of our personality; but it is from our personal distinguishments and personal representations that we partake in further communal activities with our neighbors. Perhaps there is an objective truth that the chicken came before the egg (or the other way around), but beyond the initial recognition, we must know that it is equally essential for the chicken, and the egg, to exist simultaneously should the life cycle continue to be. Be it the neighbor before the self, or the other way around as some may wish to argue- the love for either of these two categories cannot take presidency on one over the other owing to their order. This love must be equal in magnitude and value. As embodied by the teachings of Christ: love thy neighbor as thyself.

If we are to take concept of love as a form of union (this approach is embodied by Christianity), we see that as much as we are in union with others, we be in union with ourselves.

Now, how do the problems of de-individualization, masking, selfishness and narcissism arise? On closer scrutiny, we find out that these issues actually arise primarily out of the imbalance of love of one aspect over the other. De-individualization and ‘masking’ occurs generally when social identity or the obsessive love for thy neighbor overwrites and undermines the personal love and identification of the individual self. Selfishness and narcissism arises usually when self interests come before the necessary identification and love for and from thy neighbor.

In the previous post I have made a very slight acknowledgement of narcissism in the argument of self interest being the holistic reason of social identification. As we read that paragraph (once more), intuitively, we immediately form an impression that such people who argue as such are most probably self-centered and narcissistic. This is in line with the argument today because in both cases, the emphasis (resulting from the identification, and in turn from the love) on the self outweighs that of the neighbor. I do not wish to dwell overtly into this issue today; ethics has taught us more than enough on such issues, and I believe that all of us are responsible enough to recognize the importance of the neighbor as much as the importance of the self.

Instead, I would like to focus our attention to the issues of de-individualization and ‘masking’. These two issues are commonly faced by many people today, be it the teenager attempting to find his individuality among his peers, or the office worker struggling to be a competitive colleague and a loving father simultaneously. But yet society has yet to address such issues adequately as how it had tackled the former with ethics and morality. From our general knowledge, we know that the mass media has enslaved the masses to a mindless subjugation of whatever the media has to offer. We know that our youths ‘lose’ themselves in the groups they partake and the ‘youth culture’ they follow, which actually happens to too be partially the working of the media.

In sociological terms, de- individualization occurs where the individual is totally immersed within the group and no longer functions as an individual but as a group entity. This increases responses to the situation and leads to a loss of normal inhibition of behavior which may cause a person, acting with the group, to engage in anti-normative behaviors. Indeed, our society has not placed much attention on this issue primarily because although it diminishes personal identity, it allows easy control and manipulation and has its fair share of benefits, as stated succinctly:

De-individuation weakens people against performing harmful or socially disapproved actions.
De-individuation heightens peoples’ responsiveness to external cues, which may be positive (or negative).
De-individuation increases people’s adherence to norms that emerge with the group.

Indeed, it may be perfectly fine to lose one’s sense of personal identity over one’s social roles and responsibility. As far as society itself is concerned, as long as the individual does not create disorder for the community (or be a disorder to himself so much that it affects the community), there should be little problem for de-individualization and ‘masking’ (a sub-problem of de-individualization) to occur.

However we have to remind ourselves that life, as nature has created it to be biologically, is structured to diversify. The simple fundamental reason for heterosexual reproduction, and the concept of forming a completely unique DNA (that forms our personal identity) out of two different existing set of DNA, is to ensure personal identity for every individual. Be it the religious reason of God wanting each and every one of us to be unique, or the secular reason for the prevention of cloning and its disadvantages (that one virus can wipe out humanity); either way, it is evident that we were made to be individuals as much as we were made to be social. And since true identity (the united self) comprises to both aspects, it is imperative that should we wish to seek out the objective living best of our lives, we have to identify, and ‘love’ our neighbor just as how we identify and ‘love’ ourselves.

We now know that love has to be incorporated for identification to truly manifest. This is the reason on why professor Morrie had stated that in a tension of the opposites, love always wins. Be it for the self or for the neighbor, that balance of love is essential should we make the moral choices of following our personal identities or our social identities. This is owing to the fundamental fact that our identities are formed from the premise of love. And hence should we attempt make a decision, and should we wish to be ourselves all the way, it is imperative that we make this decision by love- to ourselves, or to our neighbors.

At this point in time I believe that I have made a holistic address on the topic of our identity. I have touched on the fundamentals of our personal identity: that our consciousness depends on the moderation of the four factors (logic intuition material and ideal), to interplay with our subconscious to form our psyche. With the combination of our psyche with our biologics, our personal identities are formed- to be realized only with the integration of our social identities on the aspect of love. And just as we are made for union (intercourse), we have been created unique individuals (genetics). The true identity, or the united self, would be an identity comprising of all of the above- with equal emphasis, identification, and love on the neighbor as of on the self.

It is from here I would leave you with the objective identity- and the pre-requisites of the ‘living best’ that we speak of. My next post would be a short address on the Meaning of Life- I would attempt to be as objective on my address on this issue as I can be, but nevertheless we must understand that from this point onwards most of the concepts raised would be essentially subjective in nature. I personally hope that all of us, now with the knowledge of our true identities and the fundamentals to the ‘living best’, attempt to live this ‘living best’ with our knowledge of the Meaning of Life, and from then onwards be ourselves, with or without this project.

On Identity - the individual and the community

The community, as we understand it to be, is an interdisciplinary concept that is very abstract in nature. Shared by the disciplines of biology, sociology, psychology and anthropology- even these disciplines themselves have yet to reach agreement on a definite definition of the term. Dictionary has eluded that concept to the concepts of ‘group’, ‘similarity’, and ‘togetherness’, but biologists tend to further define it to be the group of interacting organisms sharing an environment. Sociologists traditionally understand the ‘community’ to a group of interacting people living in a common location, but with the advent of the internet geography no longer poses a limitation to the concept today. Psychologists identified four distinct elements from ‘communal identity’- namely: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. Anthropologists tend to limit the community to ‘settlements’ and ‘culture’.

While these definitions are diverse and infinite, certain definitions tend to overlap and re-iterate themselves. One of the more notable conceptual definitions of the community is the address on personal and communal individuality within the group. Shared by the disciplines of sociology and psychology, this introspective tends to understand the community as a system of personal representations and interpersonal relationships.

German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies distinguishes two types of human association within any community. Known to him as Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Tonnies argues that ‘family’, ‘Kinship’ and ‘ideals’ comprise of the Gemeinschaft while Gesellschaft is a group in which individuals who make up that group are motivated to take part in the group purely by self interest. These two ideas are shared by Mc Millan and Chavis, who spearheaded the psychological understanding of ‘community’. They believed that the motivation was sparked by influence, the need of integration and fulfillment of needs, and sustained through the ‘kinship’ of membership and shared emotional connection. As exemplified:

Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board about the formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team. People attend the organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and fulfillment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership boundaries are set) and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis). They play a game and win (successful shared valent event). While playing, members exert energy on behalf of the team (personal investment in the group). As the team continues to win, team members become recognized and congratulated (gaining honor and status for being members). Someone suggests that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common symbols) and they do so (influence)

It is understood that there is no particular order of the elements.

While the first idea of personal representation is synonymous to the concept of personal identity manifestation, and this is in line with Gesellschaft, ‘influence’ and ‘fulfillment of needs’; we can see that this need for integration is personal and logic orientated. On the other hand, we get to see that the second understanding of interpersonal relationships (Gemeinschaft/ membership/ shared emotional connection) as a foreclosure to ‘sense of community’ is a concept that alludes to one of ‘love’ and ‘intuitive emotions’. Indeed, when we tone down these complex ideas postulated by sociologists and psychologists, we get a very concise and summarized statement:

The community, or the sense of community within the individual, is founded from two primary (and inter-linked) elements- namely for 1) personal interests, and 2) for love and belonging.

In the last post we have made light on the concept of social identity and its relevance to our individualities. We have touched in considerable detail on the possible contradictions of social expectation and personal aspiration and concluded that simple moderation is inadequate a technique should we attempt to find our objective selves and the ‘living best.’ We also understood that love is essential should we attempt to find and integrate our individualities with society. Today, I shall attempt to make the connection between the self, the community, the identity and love.

Do pause for a moment to re-consider the concept of ‘personal identity’ and its relevance to our ‘objective identity’ (or our full identities as of today). Personal identity tells us more about our biological makeup, our personal character, and the way we perceive things around us (via our thoughts and feelings at the changing world). But as I had iterated it is seemingly irrelevant to our well-being; for that is no more than for your personal reference and understanding. I had given a light-hearted example of ‘knowing the nineteen year-old girlfriend’ to highlight this point in my last post. But the essence of this point is that it’s fact that even our personal identities cannot be manifested unless there is someone else (different) to re-affirm our personal individuality.

Consider this thought experiment: imagine you are living in a world exactly identical to this world we are living in. All the buildings in this world are present in that imaginary world, in perfect order and structure- and the same applies for all the flora and fauna of this world. The only difference is in the imaginary world, you are the only person living there. Then one day you ask yourself this question: who am I? You immediately dwell into the concept of personal identity of what you think of the buildings and the flora and fauna and the weather, and you look at your own body to distinguish yourself as a ‘thing’ with a pair of arms and legs. But how do you know these thoughts and feelings make you, you? The only sense of identity awareness is probably you sitting there and considering your existence in that imaginary world. You would not even for a fact that you are a human being unless you’ve seen another human being before- and even that act of seeing and associating, requires sociological identification and emotional connection.

Indeed, the identification for oneself can only realize only after we have associated ourselves with others. Our unique characteristics- our interests, our agendas, thoughts and feelings remain no more as idealistic concepts unless we are able to act upon. Our subjective truths cannot be objective unless there is a form of re-affirmation and correspondence; which in this case, lies in the identification of the ‘others’.

Now that we have understood the essence of sociology and its relevance to our identities, we look back at what we have discussed earlier- immediately, we see that all types of human association are for the primary purpose of personal interests and for love and belonging. Integrating all of these together, we find out that it is actually precisely on the points of personal interest and love and belonging we have actually built our personal identities upon. Without love or the manifestation of our personal interests, we would be just like inhabitant(s) of that imaginary world- soulful, but identity-less.

But why for love and belonging? A personal sense of community entirely out of selfish personal interest may possibly suffice and manifest adequately our personal identities to the point of self-recognition. Alternatively, an identity formed out of hate and mutual exclusion could be founded too- perhaps in the imaginary world we do not need to associate with another human being to know who we are, perhaps the alternative solution is to de-associate with all the animals in that world and shrink down our possibilities to the ‘last option standing’. Analogous to ‘striking out incorrect answers in a multiple choice question to the last available option’, we could still find out our objective identities, without love-

Now, if we were to look back to the dictionary, we also get to see that the concept of ‘togetherness’ is incorporated into the concept of the ‘community’. It is notable that even within the concept of ‘togetherness’, a certain conceptual allusion of ‘unity’ and ‘positive relationship’ is evident throughout. It is even more notable that when the partial concepts of ‘unity’ and ‘positive relationship’ are integrated with ‘togetherness’ and embodied by the individual to his personal viewpoint, it in actual fact is re-represented by the concept of ‘love’. I am positive that we are all familiar to the layman’s aphorism “love unites”; we also know that the concept of love transcends the superficiality of romance and passion. Putting it in a much generalized form, we can say that any form of ‘unity’ between two or more individuals already has a partial concept of ‘love’ within the attachment.

Moreover, while Tonnies had formed the theory of the Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, he had proposed that in the real world, no group was either pure Gemeinschaft or pure Gesellschaft, but, rather, a mixture of the two. Integrating once more, we see that the concept of love (or the partial concept of it in the form of unity) is in every case indispensible in any community. Indeed, we may join a certain community for a particular personal interest, but the concept of personal interest requires a ‘love’ in certain traits of oneself, and we know that it is impossible to love without prior personal identification of the traits of oneself, which requires a sort of ‘positive relationship’ with the prior community. In either equation, we can never escape the requirement of love with the communities we are engaged in. Of course we can maintain that we never loved the previous community but the actions of the previous community; that would now be a question of narcissism, but I believe that is already beside the point.

The concepts of love, unity, self, community and identity are interlinked and come hand in hand. We know from our previous posts that personal identity, although meaningless without social re-affirmation, contributes greatly to our individualities (or what I term as the united self). Personal identity distinguishes us from our peers, while social identity re-affirms our distinguish-ments. We know now that love for oneself can only be true after the realization of others, and that social attachment entails love and belonging. In the next and final post on identity, we’ll have a glimpse of the problems of over emphasis of social identity over personal identity: de-individualization and ‘masking’. We’ll attempt to integrate both ‘identities’ with the same concept of love, and from there find the living best as we speak of today.

On Identity - on the transition to social identity

Man was never made to transverse upon this world alone. This is the fundamental reason why humans have been, since the beginning, social.

Over the past few excerpts we have discussed about the makings of the individual. We have focused greatly on the conscious self and how it is via Moderation and objective qualitative achievement that we may find the ‘living best’ that we seek. Indeed, we may theoretically understand ourselves holistically if we were to explore down to every nook and cranny of our thoughts and feelings or give serious consideration to all our prior explorations and commitments as demonstrated in Erikson’s Psychosocial Development model. But we must understand that Identity, being an abstract concept itself, is impossible to define empirically. Even with the given framework of personal continuity and consciousness, which most scholars tend to work upon, we know that the concept of Identity is more than just the self-perception of the conscious self. Just as how our identities are also dependent on Biological and subconscious factors (although I had not dwelled into the details because it is very difficult to change their existing traits), there are other factors that need to be considered before we may transit from the ‘workings’ to the ‘functioning’s’ of ourselves.

Now, some of us would have immediately realized that there is a very major factor that I have not addressed in this topic of identity. A simple question of ‘who are we?’ usually entails a legitimate response of not only our workings in both biological and psychological disciplines, but also about the roles and assumed responsibilities we play in society. As much as we are strands of DNA and a personalized balance of Logic and Intuitive feelings, we are also fathers and daughters to people around us. We are office workers and managers of the companies we work in; we are counselors and teachers, students and trouble-makers. In fact, more people would actually give a reply of the latter over the former two.

Why? The reasoning is rather straightforward and obvious: what good does it does to me to know that you’re genetically structured as such or what specific point in the balance does your psyche lay? Now, it may be objectively good to know that those factors also make you- but that is no more than for your personal reference and understanding. To me, I am more interested in your personality in general and the roles you assume in our society. It is more constructive for me to know that you’re a happy and outgoing student and daughter of nineteen years of age for you to be a prospective girlfriend, rather than the arrangement of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms in your cells or the exact thoughts and feelings that run through you that makes you be that happy and outgoing person that I perceive you to be.

Of course, we still have to understand that thoughts and feelings are essential to address if we wish to understand and control better our personalities and our conscious being. But if we are to fully understand about our existence, we need to not only consider it from a personal point of view, but also from the subjective point of views of those around us about us.

From which lies the transition from psychological identity to social identity. As described succinctly:

In psychology, a psychological identity relates to self-image (a person's mental model of him or herself), self-esteem, and individuation. An important part of identity in psychology is gender identity, as this dictates to a significant degree how an individual views him or herself both as a person and in relation to other people. In cognitive psychology, the term "identity" refers to the capacity for self-reflection and the awareness of self

Sociology places some explanatory weight on the concept of role-behavior. The notion of identity negotiation may arise from the learning of social roles through personal experience. Identity negotiation is a process in which a person negotiates with society at large regarding the meaning of his or her identity.

Psychologists most commonly use the term "identity" to describe personal identity, or the idiosyncratic things that make a person unique. Meanwhile, sociologists often use the term to describe social identity, or the collection of group memberships that define the individual. However, these uses are not proprietary, and each discipline may use either concept.

From here, there is a myriad of issues that we are able to address. For a start, we now know that there are now two broad categories to distinguish Identity- namely personal and social identity. Biology, Consciousness and sub-consciousness would generally fall under the first category of personal identity- not because it is entirely personal; but rather just because less people would be concerned with these aspects of our lives. Roles, responsibilities and personality traits would then generally fall under the second category of social identity; of course without compromise of personal identification from them.

Our full identities definitely comprise of all of the above.

But intuitively, we immediately know that this transition from personal and social identity is not as a simple integration an integration of both aspects. We know that there is actually a great discrepancy between the way we look at ourselves, and the way society looks upon us. And we know that it is precisely because of this fundamental reason why people choose to put on the ‘masks of life’ and have ‘split personalities’. After all, if we were to be made of a personal conscious ego- to a certain personal aspiration; and at the same time equally denoted by the conformity of social responsibility to do otherwise; how are we able to be ourselves throughout without the expense of ourselves in the first place?

Moreover, we are also aware of the increasing state of de-individualization of individuals today. De-individualization is defined as the diminished sense of personal identity out of social conformity or for social recognition. Indeed, identification of oneself in a social context is believed to allow one to gain a sense of positive self esteem, a sense of self categorization, and a further sense of distinctness. But we are aware (see on Logic Education and Our Lives Part 2) that over-emphasis of the technicalities over the true philosophy of a system can warp logic and lead to integrity failure. The same holds for the act of identification of oneself in a social context- or in layman’s terms, socializing. We return to the topic of Teenage Culture which we had studied extensively on General Paper- the main by-product problems of Teenage Culture includes a diminished sense of ‘self-identity’, stereotyping and Identity confusion. It is also no wonder that in Erikson’s Psychosocial Development Model, the crisis of Identity and role-confusion is generally touched by Adolescences (see The Qualitative Consciousness).

If simple integration has been impossible to reconcile both aspects of our identities, how are we going to find the objective ‘living best’ of ourselves? From the beginning we have acknowledge the existence of an objective truth in this world. And it is from this we have established a need of moderation and balance of logic and intuitive feelings, in both material and ideal conditions- to find the objective makings of ourselves. From here, we have returned to the former question of objectivity and subjectivity. From the subjective-objectivity of our biology and our consciousness, to the objective-subjectivity of the roles we play to others and ourselves (no I am not playing with my words); how are we to find the Objective answer to our true identity, without falling into the traps of personality ‘masking’ and De-individualization as many people of the world have fell victims to?

This I believe requires on final concept to be addressed- not as a means of moderation of ‘the tension of the opposites’; but more as a means to re-alignment of both personal and social aspects of our identity as quoted in the book Tuesdays With Morrie by Mitch Albom. Indeed, this concept could be considered the most congenial of concepts that have been addressed in this entire project, but paradoxically it’s a concept that we have most often taken for granted in our lives. I would be addressing this final concept in the next post, but meanwhile, do allow me to re-quote an excerpt from the book-

“A tension of opposites, like a pull on the rubber band. And most of us live somewhere in the middle.”
Sounds like a wrestling match, I say
“A wrestling match,” He laughs. “Yes, you could describe life that way.”
So which side wins, I ask?
He smiles at me, the crinkled eyes, the crooked teeth.
“Love wins. Love always wins.”

On Identity - the qualitative consciousness

Coincidently, there was a little discussion a few days ago on the topic of Self-Identity that I had got to hear about. One of the more notable comments made was the concept that Identity is everything that makes you. Although it may seem to some as being over generalized and ambiguous, but nevertheless it is admit-able that the essence of that statement is true in its own respect.

Every new truth (concept) we learn from the world, every thought and decision that influences us to feel the way we are, every intuitive feeling we experience that we associate a logical explanation for, and every of the above which we had committed to memory. Every memory and their corresponding reactions that accumulates to form tendencies and traits, and every tendency and trait to that web of personality; every bit of personality that manifests itself in all our actions (and reactions) to form our behavior, and ultimately every bit of these that all comes together that makes us. Some of these we are able to exert some form of control at will, while others we tend to be less aware or find difficult to change. That is the formation of our psychological identity, or our conscious and subconscious self.

Of course I do not mean that the above chain of processes is the definite construct of Identity from the rudimentary basics of thoughts and feelings, since the human psyche is interdependent and complex. As much as thoughts and feelings coming together in experience to form memories and tendencies, memories and tendencies can in turn affect every subsequent thought and feeling that the individual experiences. But if I were to make analogous the entire process to that of making Kachang-Puteh, what we had discussed in the previous faculty (on logic, intuition, material and ideal) are the ingredients of Kachang-Puteh , and it doesn’t really matter whether you add the green peas before you add the peanuts, or whether it’s the other way around. Both way, we are all a characteristic blend of all four; and into a personalized concoction of personality we all be.

Now, if I were to be given the liberty to expand a little more along the analogy, we will inevitably find out that some Kachang-Puteh are tastier than others. Some will have more nuts than peas, and some will have more peas than nuts, and some will have peanuts and no more of either. And if we were to dwell deeper into the individual components, we find out that some Kachang-Puteh have better tasting peas, nuts and peanuts than others. Now, indeed the above sentences may sound lighthearted; but if were to still compare Kachang-Puteh to our Individualities, what are we leading to today?

That is to the concepts of imbalance and identity awareness. In my previous post on the MBTI and the previous faculty on the Moderation Doctrine (The Balance), I have already concluded an objective ‘better’ of integration of the four. Today, I will dwell more closely upon the second concept of identity awareness- on how it determines the quality of consciousness of the individual, and how does it allow us to find the ‘living best’ by making us be the ‘best’ of ourselves.

Some of us may be aware to the theories of Erik Erikson. Erik was a Neo-Freudian, and he had elaborated Freud’s theories of Psychosexual Development and of the Ego (in which we have made certain note of in the previous discussion). Much of his life was dedicated to the field of psychology, especially regarding the identity and the self. He was most famous for his theory of the personality, where he had developed his eight stages of Psychosocial Development (or the development of the identity). Erikson believed that the development of a strong ego identity, along with the proper integration into a stable society and culture, lead to a stronger sense of identity in general. Accordingly, a deficiency in either of these factors may increase the chance of an identity crisis or confusion.

(see above table for more information)


Of course the majority of us are already familiar to the concepts of Trust, Mistrust, Autonomy, Shame, Doubt, Industry and Inferiority. But even so, there are many around us that are still grappling with the concepts of Identity, Intimacy, Generativity and Ego Integrity. Do note that even some people are still grappling with concepts such as Trust, Autonomy and Initiative, so as we see of the paranoid, those with little confidence or the role-confused. After all, the age group only denotes the approximate timings for an individual to face the following eight identity crises. In other words, we all may have faced the following eight problems at different points of our lives; and based on our successes and failures, we all may be at different stages of the Identity Development.

Indeed, the previous faculty states that there is an objective better identity, via the integration of logic and intuition. But putting it all together today, we get to ask ourselves this fundamental question: at what logic and what intuitive feeling do we build our identities upon? We know that trust requires logic and intuition, and so is with the sense of Will, and Wisdom. In fact, all of the above requires some form of integration of logic and intuition in both materialistic and idealistic aspects (see Generativity and Ideology). But from the previous faculty of discussions we know that even logic and intuition, both material and ideal, are amoral and have their own strengths and weaknesses. And as much as having a moderation of logical thought and experiences that promotes Trust there is also a blend for Mistrust. The same applies to the other stages.

This is of course, only valid when we assume a Metaphysical Objectivism to the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

If we were to summarize the above eight stages into two broad and distinct categories, we find out that our identities are actually definable as the level of awareness, and commitment of us towards ‘ourselves’. As succinctly stated:
An individual's sense of identity is determined in large part by the explorations and commitments that he or she makes regarding certain personal and social traits. It follows that the core of the research in this paradigm investigates the degrees to which a person has made certain explorations, and the degree to which he or she displays a commitment to those explorations.

A person may display either relative weakness or relative strength in terms of both exploration and commitments. When assigned categories, four possible permutations result: identity diffusion, identity foreclosure, identity moratorium, and identity achievement. Diffusion is when a person lacks both exploration in life and interest in committing even to those unchosen roles that he or she occupies. Foreclosure is when a person has not chosen extensively in the past, but seems willing to commit to some relevant values, goals, or roles in the future. Moratorium is when a person displays a kind of flightiness, ready to make choices but unable to commit to them. Finally, achievement is when a person makes identity choices and commits to them.

This is represented in James Marcia paradigm of Erikson’s work in the field of identity.

The central idea of every self-help book lies in the question if we are aware of our current selves and the perpetual better that we all may be. Indeed, through the previous posts on the identity, we have discusses (and seen) the different components that make up our identity. We have understood what we can and cannot change of ourselves. We get to know more about our conscious selves, and on how it could be made better. Finally, we get to understand that what affects our conscious identity- not only by the moderation of the four (see MBTI), but also by the objective quality of these fundamentals.

Of course we round up this topic of personal identity on the quote that we cannot change each other overnight, and from here I reiterate that I do not intend to change any of our current identities with whatever I have spoken insofar. After all, I can never fully understand the extent of your full identities (see metaphysical intuition); moreover, I do not have a right of judgment (see subjectivism) since I too am in search of my personal identity. In the next post, I will be covering a little on social identity and how society affects our sense of being; but meanwhile- I hope that with at least a basic knowledge of ourselves we can begin to grasp at this infinitely complex concept of living the ‘living best’.

On Identity - What Makes Our Identity?

Do allow me to ask you a question today- who are you?

Without a doubt many people would start off by telling their names. This is indeed a natural reflex, because their name, like any other personal names, identifies a specific unique and identifiable individual person.

Okay…. But still, who are you?

Now, some people would start to get stumped from this second comment. Some would re-iterate that they are what their names are, and many people would start to associate related concepts to the concept of their individuality- I am eighteen, I am a female, I study at National University Singapore, I am single, I live in Ang Mo Kio, my family is…… (Grin)

Biologists on the other hand, would be ranting off a completely different script. They would touch on genes, on how it is exclusively different to the individual, and how they complex to form the individual DNA. They would then touch on cells- how cells come together and complexes, with each cell having that specific DNA code, to form the individual himself. And since every bit of the person is made by atoms that are somehow slightly differently structured (due to genetics), henceforth every body (literal) is individual.

Now, we know that this is an association of logical concepts. We associate more familiar concepts such as eighteen, female, NUS, single, Ang Mo Kio, and family, to slowly piece together the more complex conceptual being of the individual on top of her name. Similarly, we too associate the concepts of genes, particular DNA structures, cells and bodies to re-construct the concept of the body. Indeed, they could keep ranting off details and associative concepts, and they may be correct in representing the individual. But as Henri Bergson has stated before, just how Ang Mo Kio can never be a part of you, and how that particular brain can never be that individual mind, these concepts can never truly represent the actual thing itself.

So, who are you? Then and again, what makes the ‘you’ that you have associate yourself to be all this time, actually you?

From the previous posts, we have concluded that the only method of answering this question lies within the faculty of Intuition and Intellectual Sympathy. I can never be for a moment, you- and hence theoretically I can never get the full truth to the answer. But now, there is only one person who could answer this question fully and truthfully. I don’t mean to sound like an overzealous author of some self-help book, but that person is you (or the individual herself). In other words, the question on personal identity can be answered by no one but only the individual.

Note that concept of self-identity is a very complex topic. Generally speaking, the fundamental premise of Personal Identity lies in the concept of Personal Continuity, or the conditions under which person at one time is the same person at another time. Personal Continuity ensures that the quality of the mind are consistent from movement to the next, generally regarded to include self awareness, sentience, sapience (wisdom-ic epistemological judgment), and perception. Note that all four aspects require an integrated form of logic and intuition, especially sapience and perception- which concepts have been touched on in the previous post of the MBTI.

From there, it forms the conscious conscience. The conscience is the repeated self-identification of oneself, or the self-identification of one’s personality through time. Some philosophers may believe that consciousness is the primary form of identity of human beings; as Locke argues that Self-identity is not founded on the body substance as the body may change while the person remains the same. Take for example a prince's mind which enters the body of a cobbler: to all exterior eyes, the cobbler would remain a cobbler. But to the prince himself, the cobbler would be himself, as he would be conscious of the prince's thoughts and acts, and not those of the cobbler. A prince's consciousness in a cobbler's body: thus the cobbler is, in fact, a prince.

Now, while this argument is appealing in a cognitive context, many people have thought that such disregard for the biology of the individual was a fallible assumption. Biologists (see above) have given a definition of a human as a biological organism and have asserted that a psychological relation is not fully necessary for Personal Continuity. As Eric Olson has asserted, personal identity too lies in life-sustaining processes. After all, would you still be you if you were to be reduced to the mind of a brain floating in a glass jar kept alive by artificial means?

Now we get to see a relationship between the biologist’s script and our conventional script. Grandly known as the mind-body problem, it concerns the explanation of relations that exist between the mental processes, and bodily states. Indeed, this topic touches once more on the issues of biological determinism and free will- in this context, when the non-material mind can influence a material body.

Of course this project does not aim for us to modify our biology. As our biological make-up is very much determined by nature and the logical construct of our genetics, it would be near-impossible (although probable in a utopia via eugenics) to seek the objective ‘living best’ directly from the objective truth of the best ‘biology’. From here, we shall assume the existence of a free will, or at least a possibility for the mind to at least assert an influence on the body. We would dwell in greater detail on the consciousness of the individual, and from there construct the individuality of the individual.

Consciousness now is a term often used in everyday speech to describe being awake and aware- responsive to the environment. But in more philosophical and scientific discussion, as a more related to the specific way in which humans are mentally aware in such a way that they distinguish clearly between themselves and all other things. Consciousness entails self-awareness, and they involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, memories, and dreams.

The conscious mind would then subdivide into two different forms of consciousness; namely known as phenomenal consciousness (P- consciousness) and access consciousness (A- consciousness). P-consciousness would simply be the metaphysical intuitive experience- as according to Wikipedia, it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. On the other hand, A-consciousness would be the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and control of behavior. Note that P-consciousness is very metaphysical (ontological) while A-consciousness is one that is more logic dependent.

The integration of both types of consciousness would of course piece together the conscious self; but now that we have addressed the metaphysical and logical aspects of consciousness, we have inadvertently alluded to the concept of the rational mind, or the seat of the assumption why do we consider why humans in general are identifiable to the concept of rationality. Indeed, we have touched many a times that logic and feeling are essential for the rational being of ourselves, but I have always yet to give a satisfactory derivation of this assumption. We are rational because we are conscious, and consciousness entails both metaphysical and logical faculties.

But do note that our identities are not completely based at the very point of time when we are conscious and aware of ourselves. Dreams are particular to the identity of the individual, and so are memories, but both of them are independent of the conscious mind. We dream when we are actually asleep (or unconscious), and our memories and moods transcend the ‘now’ of conscious reactions to include past experiences and thoughts that ‘just flared up again somehow during the heat of the moment’. How can those be addressed by the concepts of consciousness and biology which we have touched on the past two pages?

Sigmund Freud believed that active-consciousness (both P-consciousness and A-consciousness) was not truly accountable for all conscious behavior and thought. He believed that there was one more aspect, namely the unconscious mind that was lacking. His unconscious mind was not one independent of the conscious mind, but one more of sub-consciousness and pre-consciousness. From there he had developed theories on repressed memories, and explained background tendencies of many individuals- including The Psychosexual Development (the jealous phallus), the Id, Ego, and Super-ego; and The Life and Death Drives.

Of most the noteworthy should be the concept of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego. Unlike convention, the ego is defined as the personality structure which included defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive. It is a balance of the id and the Super ego- which refers to the impulsive (basic drives) and the egoistic ideals. In a very crude form it may take after the concepts of the Material and the Ideal; Sigmund believed that everybody possesses a characteristic ego, and this ego is the balance of their impulses and ideals.

There are a lot of other things to discuss about the theories of Sigmund Freud, but they require a lot of background knowledge and association. Unfortunately, we can hardly do his works justice if we were to summarize such complex concepts into a couple of paragraphs, I would thus encourage all readers to undertake their own further reading into his theories to understand how the unconscious (or subconscious) comes into play to form our Identities.

Biology, consciousness, and unconsciousness- The biological aspect (I re-iterate) we will not be touching much in great in detail, the un-conscious mind and the conscious mind very dependent on thoughts and experiences. These are the three major bases that form up our personal identities, and from there grows most thoughts, feelings, moods, tendencies, memories, and dreams. We can attempt to multiply and explain all of the above (aspects?) covered today the next time someone asks us who we are to infinity, or we could integrate all of the above to a metaphysical intuition of our personal lives that no one but us can understand- either way, this is us: our selves, and our personal identities that is unique to no one but ourselves.

Reconstructing Identity

ESTJ – Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging
INFP – Introversion, iNtuition, Feeling, Percieving

I am positive that many of us would have heard about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), even if we have yet to formally hear of it. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment, as quoted, is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. It extrapolates on the original theories hypothesized by psychoanalytic Carl Gustav Jung, who proposes that there were four main functions of consciousness: namely 'Sensation', 'Intuition', 'Thinking' and 'Feeling'. These functions are then modified by two main attitude types: extraversion and introversion. The MBTI adds in an additional attribute (judging/perceiving) to the theories of Jungian psychology.

With quick reference to the above two personality types, we immediately get to see that these two are a pair we would commonly associate as ‘radically different’ or ‘complimentary’. Disregarding Extraversion and Introversion (we will be touching on this in the topic ‘personal and social identity’) ‘Sensing’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Judging’ can be considered as the more ‘logical’ approach to life whilst ‘Intuition’, ‘Feeling’ and ‘Perceiving’ may be ‘perceived’ to be the more intuitive approach. While the four attributes classify the different states of the human mind, these attributes, and the Jungian theory it has it’s backing upon are actually derivative from the discipline of philosophy. It is no wonder that we have returned back to the concepts of analytical epistemology and metaphysical ontology again- It is also no wonder that the discipline of psychology is actually an application of philosophy, utilizing the scientific method, to analyze and improve the human cognition.

‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. In summary, they describe how new information is understood and interpreted. ‘Sensing’ individuals tend to trust information that is real, present, tangible and concrete; to them, the meaning lies within the facts and data. Do note that such information is very ‘now’ or ‘materialistic’ in essence- in other words, people who Sense are very ‘realistic’ realists. On the other hand, Intuitionists tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical. This corresponds to the ‘idealistic’ or ‘eternal’ concept that I had touched upon on the topic of the Now and Eternal.

‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are the decision-making (Judging) functions. They are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). While ‘Thinking’ individuals (as quoted by Wikipedia) ‘tend to decide things… by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent and matching a given set of rules, those who prefer 'feeling' tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation’. Recalling the concept of intuition as a form of intellectual empathy, we get a direct link that ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ are actually derivatives from the concepts of Logical Analysis and metaphysical Intuition.

Beyond the theories of Carl Jung, Myers and Briggs had factored in an additional attribute to the human psyche known to be the ‘preferential lifestyle’. They had believed that some people prefer to live a lifestyle of Perception (sensing and intuition) while others prefer one of Judgment via their thoughts and feelings. In other words, the attributes of ‘Judgment’ and ‘Perception’ are henceforth the integrated product of ‘Sense’, ‘Intuition’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Feeling’ on the MBTI scale; or Now, Eternal, logic and Intuition on the Moderation Doctrine.

Now, it is empathetically understandable that there can be no ‘right or wrong answer’ to the various outcomes that may arise via the permutation of the above four (of three we are currently concerned with insofar). This is partially because statistics have shown that the distribution of results over multiple individuals are more or less balanced; moreover, equal proportion of individuals from many of the different groups have lived rather successful, if not contented lives.

However, from the previous faculty of the Moderation Doctrine, we had concluded objectively that there are both strengths and weaknesses of logic and intuition itself. Recapping, logic is essential to our lives, it provides us objective truths in our epistemological knowledge. However it is very easily warped by the human will- even up to two opposing viewpoints on a given (set) situation, just as long as the flow has unity and coherence. Intuition, on the other hand, gives us the true experience of answers. However the truth it provides can be easily influenced by the logical interpretation by the human mind (since the human brain is logical in construct). The same we had concluded over the ‘Now’ and ‘Eternal’. Excessive emphasis on the ‘now’ would result in materialism and secularism, while, the opposite would result in the ‘idealistic’ life that bears no relevance to the world today. As a conclusion, we had stated that the objectively living best would be a life of integration of both logical analysis and intuitive experience, in both the material and idealistic.

Now what implications does it impose on the results of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Since there is very little distinction of the Moderation Doctrine and the MBTI, it logically concludes that while all current outcomes of the MBTI are equally ‘right’, there is actually an objective ‘better’ among all the available permutations. This objective answer is actually the balanced answer of moderation on the MBTI, or the answer when the test results in an equal proportion of ‘Sensing’ and ‘Intuition’ traits, as well as in the attributes of ‘Thought’ and ‘Feeling’.

Putting this in very layman’s terms at a very elementary concept- rather than being on a single side of life, why not be on both sides and have the best of both worlds?

Of course, such discourses on the ‘living best’ cannot be justified with the re-conceptualization of such layman’s terms. We as humans cannot, for a fact, change our personalities overnight upon our own free will due to natural determinism. Neither can we assume that an integrated personality would definitely be objectively better (all the time) than a personality that lies on one of the sixteen possible outcomes- this is because while it is true that ‘the best of both worlds’ may be integrated, the contrary outcome, or ‘the worst of both worlds’ may too be integrated in such a ‘moderated’ life. Henceforth it would be philosophically unwise to attempt to change our personalities now that we have found an objective answer to the MBTI.

However, it is important to note once again that I have yet to factor in the attributes of Introvertism and Extravertism. I will give a more detailed explanation on the topic of Social Identity, but the current preclusion also lies within a certain sort of balance of the Introvert and the Extravert. As for now, this balance theory is still very confined to the individual mental cognition. But as a form of conclusion, we have reasoned out that there is indeed an objective answer to the truth of the ‘living best’, and that this objective answer would lie in accordance to the integration (or moderation) of ‘logic’, ‘intuition’, ‘now’ and ‘eternal’ as represented by ‘Sensing’, ‘Intuition’, ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ on the MBTI.

In the next topic, I’ll be covering the topic of personal identity. I believe that such an analysis is overly simplistic and does not do the topic justice- In the meantime; any form of criticism or comment is welcomed.
*

Side note:

Do note that there has been a slight error in conceptual re-representation from the Moderation Doctrine to the theories of Carl Jung adopted by the MBTI. This error would lie in the definition of intuition. In the Moderation Doctrine, ‘Intuition’ is defined as the metaphysical intuitive intellectual empathy (experience). In the theories of Jungian psychology and the MBTI, ‘intuition’ is known as a trust of abstract and theoretical information. In the above excerpt, I have attempted to clarify this error by the introduction of inverted commas (‘’) onto the Jungian ‘Intuition’ as opposing to the Intuition brought forward by metaphysics and the Moderation Doctrine.

Should the Moderation Doctrine (a derivation of philosophy) and the MBTI (a derivation of psychology) be mapped out side by side, the following conceptual links should be consistent and synonymous:


Logic (Logical Analysis) ------------------- ‘Thought’
Intuition (intellectual sympathy) ------- ‘Feelings’
Material (Now) ----------------------------- ‘Sense’
Idealistic (eternal) ------------------------- ‘Intuition’

Should there be any further difficulties in the interpretation of terms and concepts within this excerpts, do feel free to comment at the response page or on the discussion board at the side of this webpage.