The Charactor of identity

[Gamerbird]

Why would some pertitrate a lie or a deception, even a minor one to make themselves appear more inline with a group, when it means they deny themselves in doing it? Is this done out of insecurity or preservation of acceptability, even though it is fraudulant?

 

I want to take a moment to answer this specific bit of the original post, due to have done this myself. I lied to family and friends for many years and it was a fight for acceptability and from fear of what would happen should I 'come out'. This is the case with many people, the fear of what could happen or will happen. Over time I'd say the majority of people come to terms with themselves and realise that hiding who they are is doing more damage to themselves than they need, so will overcome it. It takes time and the people who do this need to be supported. It's all about the fear of what is to come, which is turn becomes a way of making yourself 'normal' by societies standards.

 

It took me a while to come out, and when I did, I lost a fair amount of my friends. However since then I have been happier than I have ever been, gained good friends, realised who wasn't and found who I really am.

[kvnchrist]

 

Why would some pertitrate a lie or a deception, even a minor one to make themselves appear more inline with a group, when it means they deny themselves in doing it? Is this done out of insecurity or preservation of acceptability, even though it is fraudulant?

 

I want to take a moment to answer this specific bit of the original post, due to have done this myself. I lied to family and friends for many years and it was a fight for acceptability and from fear of what would happen should I 'come out'. This is the case with many people, the fear of what could happen or will happen. Over time I'd say the majority of people come to terms with themselves and realise that hiding who they are is doing more damage to themselves than they need, so will overcome it. It takes time and the people who do this need to be supported. It's all about the fear of what is to come, which is turn becomes a way of making yourself 'normal' by societies standards.

 

It took me a while to come out, and when I did, I lost a fair amount of my friends. However since then I have been happier than I have ever been, gained good friends, realised who wasn't and found who I really am.

 

 

If you mean sexual orientation then you lost no friends. What walked out of your life was associates who were attracted to a lie. They too lied by calling themselves your friends. Friendship is an honor and those that aren't honored to know you aren't worth having around. . As for me, I'm honored to read your post. I'm proud that you can breath the fresh air of openness and can now wed who you wish in every state in the union. Have a wonderful day.

[MotoSxorpio]

 

 

Why would some pertitrate a lie or a deception, even a minor one to make themselves appear more inline with a group, when it means they deny themselves in doing it? Is this done out of insecurity or preservation of acceptability, even though it is fraudulant?

 

I want to take a moment to answer this specific bit of the original post, due to have done this myself. I lied to family and friends for many years and it was a fight for acceptability and from fear of what would happen should I 'come out'. This is the case with many people, the fear of what could happen or will happen. Over time I'd say the majority of people come to terms with themselves and realise that hiding who they are is doing more damage to themselves than they need, so will overcome it. It takes time and the people who do this need to be supported. It's all about the fear of what is to come, which is turn becomes a way of making yourself 'normal' by societies standards.

 

It took me a while to come out, and when I did, I lost a fair amount of my friends. However since then I have been happier than I have ever been, gained good friends, realised who wasn't and found who I really am.

 

 

If you mean sexual orientation then you lost no friends. What walked out of your life was associates who were attracted to a lie. They too lied by calling themselves your friends. Friendship is an honor and those that aren't honored to know you aren't worth having around. . As for me, I'm honored to read your post. I'm proud that you can breath the fresh air of openness and can now wed who you wish in every state in the union. Have a wonderful day.

 

 

 

 

Why would some pertitrate a lie or a deception, even a minor one to make themselves appear more inline with a group, when it means they deny themselves in doing it? Is this done out of insecurity or preservation of acceptability, even though it is fraudulant?

 

I want to take a moment to answer this specific bit of the original post, due to have done this myself. I lied to family and friends for many years and it was a fight for acceptability and from fear of what would happen should I 'come out'. This is the case with many people, the fear of what could happen or will happen. Over time I'd say the majority of people come to terms with themselves and realise that hiding who they are is doing more damage to themselves than they need, so will overcome it. It takes time and the people who do this need to be supported. It's all about the fear of what is to come, which is turn becomes a way of making yourself 'normal' by societies standards.

 

It took me a while to come out, and when I did, I lost a fair amount of my friends. However since then I have been happier than I have ever been, gained good friends, realised who wasn't and found who I really am.

 

 

If you mean sexual orientation then you lost no friends. What walked out of your life was associates who were attracted to a lie. They too lied by calling themselves your friends. Friendship is an honor and those that aren't honored to know you aren't worth having around. . As for me, I'm honored to read your post. I'm proud that you can breath the fresh air of openness and can now wed who you wish in every state in the union. Have a wonderful day.

 

You won't know who you really are until you have reflected all of your life's choices. You should start now, it might take a few decades to catch up.

 

 

EDIT: yeah, Sitebot likes me to make two quotes when I only click it once.

Edited July 8, 2015 by MotoSxorpio

[Vagrant0]

From where I see it, the reason for adopting a persona, identity, social mask, or whatever isn't about being untrue to yourself or others. Nor is it about being insecure or feeling incapable. People, most people, I think are far more complex than they let on or even acknowledge themselves. So complex that it might be overwhelming for both parties if it was all exposed immediately. It would also be a lengthy, and potentially dangerous (since you might tell them of your weaknesses or give them reason to do you harm) task of fully conveying everything about yourself every time you encountered someone new. I see it more as, well, a mask. A way to present yourself to a given group as a means of showing aspects about yourself which either exist or which you want to exist. This mask narrows the amount of information that group knows about you and frames it in a way which is not complicated by all the other stuff you might have going on. It is a way of giving people a brief description of yourself that is easier to learn in a short period of time. The longer you are with a group, naturally, the more you can slowly, unconsciously, peel back the mask and show more of yourself. Or, over time, wearing the same mask for so long, you start to forget that there is something more behind it, slowly start losing or replacing parts of who you were, for good or bad. You bond with others by showing them a side of shared interests and common goals, possibly offering various incentives to continued contact... Just as you turn away those by presenting conflicting interests or goals or discouraging continued contact.

 

I would imagine that much of this sort of socialization behavior developed as one group of hominids came into contact with another. They needed ways to tell friendly groups from unfriendly ones. They needed ways to communicate to others simply what their intentions were. Of course deceit also came from this development because it would have allowed successful deceivers to survive longer while still enjoying the spoils from those they betray. But this also developed along with the ability to see through deception and be more successful since you could avoid or remove those dangers. Being something that developed so early is probably why it is so integral to human culture and why things like lying or seeing through lies tends to be such a natural thing... That gut feeling.

 

The rightness or wrongness of it all is less about what is being done, and more about why it is being done. Feigning interest in something for the sake of friends can often be the first step towards developing a real interest in that thing, just as much as it can end up being more and more artificial until the friendship suffers. Just as you can meet someone hiding your intentions to do them harm, and realize that you don't want to hurt them but would have if you were true with your intentions initially, and could have been left worse because of it.

[MotoSxorpio]

From where I see it, the reason for adopting a persona, identity, social mask, or whatever isn't about being untrue to yourself or others. Nor is it about being insecure or feeling incapable. People, most people, I think are far more complex than they let on or even acknowledge themselves. So complex that it might be overwhelming for both parties if it was all exposed immediately. I see it more as, well, a mask. A way to present yourself to a given group as a means of showing aspects about yourself which either exist or which you want to exist. This mask narrows the amount of information that group knows about you and frames it in a way which is not complicated by all the other stuff you might have going on. It is a way of giving people a brief description of yourself that is easier to learn in a short period of time. The longer you are with a group, naturally, the more you can slowly, unconsciously, peel back the mask and show more of yourself. Or, over time, wearing the same mask for so long, you start to forget that there is something more behind it, slowly start losing or replacing parts of who you were, for good or bad. You bond with others by showing them a side of shared interests and common goals, possibly offering various incentives to continued contact... Just as you turn away those by presenting conflicting interests or goals or discouraging continued contact.

 

I would imagine that much of this sort of socialization behavior developed as one group of hominids came into contact with another. They needed ways to tell friendly groups from unfriendly ones. They needed ways to communicate to others simply what their intentions were. Of course deceit also came from this development because it would have allowed successful deceivers to survive longer while still enjoying the spoils from those they betray. But this also developed along with the ability to see through deception and be more successful since you could avoid or remove those dangers. Being something that developed so early is probably why it is so integral to human culture and why things like lying or seeing through lies tends to be such a natural thing... That gut feeling.

 

The rightness or wrongness of it all is less about what is being done, and more about why it is being done. Feigning interest in something for the sake of friends can often be the first step towards developing a real interest in that thing, just as much as it can end up being more and more artificial until the friendship suffers. Just as you can meet someone hiding your intentions to do them harm, and realize that you don't want to hurt them but would have if you were true with your intentions initially, and could have been left worse because of it.

Well said, Vagrant0. It goes further though. Say you get arrested for Check Fraud, That situation could dictate several individuals (you, the cops, the observers) making like something else is happening (the cops, the observers), in order to save face for one of those individuals. So now they are all in on one deceit...

Edited July 8, 2015 by MotoSxorpio

[Vagrant0]

Well said, Vagrant0. It goes further though. Say you get arrested for Check Fraud, That situation could dictate several individuals (you, the cops, the observers) making like something else is happening (the cops, the observers), in order to save face for one of those individuals. So now they are all in on one deceit...

 

Which often happens, either intentionally or unintentionally through either confusion of events, lack of evidence, lack of meaningful consequence, or understanding that there is more to the situation than a single act; and that everything isn't as cut and dry as the law tries to make it. The morality still lies with the reason why any of the actions taken were decided, and is not all inclusive to the original act.

 

Is it moral or immoral to let someone go with a warning or a small penalty in cases where issuing a full and strict penalty would have a more negative effect on those who committed the crime? Surely it depends on the severity of the crime committed, and the overall implications. Chopping off the hand of every thief does little to discourage all theft, but it does lead to more people walking around with only one hand who end up being more dependent on family or social services (read begging) instead of earning their own living productively.

[MotoSxorpio]

 

Well said, Vagrant0. It goes further though. Say you get arrested for Check Fraud, That situation could dictate several individuals (you, the cops, the observers) making like something else is happening (the cops, the observers), in order to save face for one of those individuals. So now they are all in on one deceit...

 

Which often happens, either intentionally or unintentionally through either confusion of events, lack of evidence, lack of meaningful consequence, or understanding that there is more to the situation than a single act; and that everything isn't as cut and dry as the law tries to make it. The morality still lies with the reason why any of the actions taken were decided, and is not all inclusive to the original act.

 

Is it moral or immoral to let someone go with a warning or a small penalty in cases where issuing a full and strict penalty would have a more negative effect on those who committed the crime? Surely it depends on the severity of the crime committed, and the overall implications. Chopping off the hand of every thief does little to discourage all theft, but it does lead to more people walking around with only one hand who end up being more dependent on family or social services (read begging) instead of earning their own living productively.

 

Each event needs its own debate. No one circumstance can cover all. Yeah, seems like chopping a hand off for stealing chickens would be proper in some circumstances. Say someone steals a chicken from a balcony coup in downtown Manhattan. Say another someone steals a chicken from a tribal pen in South Africa. Given all the circumstances, guy from Manhattan gets off without losing a hand.

 

So Environment must have something to do with personal identity. Let alone social pressures, language barriers (even in ones' own language)...

[kvnchrist]

We also get into that familiar discussion about what is justice and what is revenge. A person who gets his hand cut off will go through life with a limited capacity to fend for him/herself., but one forced to work off their debte to the owner of the items that was taken would benefit both individuals.

 

Also, I'd like to touch on another thing that came to mind when I was reading you guy's replies. It was about the mask and my understanding is that there really is a persona we carry deep inside us that is our inner child. Through the many years of our growth we have learned to wrap a coating of invulnerability around this inner child, so that we can protect that entity from cold and callous world around us. Each time we are hurt, for any reason, even if it is all in our minds we through up a new wall between us and them.

 

Love is a thing were use that many times we really are not aware of that opens us up as carfully as we will allow it to reveal ourselves to the outter world. When I talk about love, I mean it in two distinct ways. There is the love of compassion that unfolds by seeing others as we do ourselves. I would use the example of seeing another go through a situation that we've gone through and we find understanding for the hurt that individual is feeling in our on memories of the hurt we felt. We have to be careful when relating to others becuse of our compassion, because some people can become addicted to being attended to, emotionally and will attempt to drain you, even up to the point of using guilt to shackle you to their neediness.

 

The second form of love is that which reveals itself in many ways, but it is a love that melts away the coatings protecting your inner self , because that love is one that relates to your need and becomes a desire for release of that entity because it becomes imperative that the person you react to sees the person you are. In the first example of love, It is you that attempts to clean away the ugliness the world places on another, or at least lessens the impact of that ugliness on the individual. The second is geared toward clensing the toxins in your own soul by way of letting the object of your desire in through those barriers. This to me is the best description I can impart, right now of the difference between loving and being in love.

 

Of course there is also the question of what is harder on the spirit who is without someone to love, wither is is the lack of having someone to show you love or the lack of someone there to accept the love you have. . Both I think will lead to despair or a sense of purpose beyond the norm that can and will lead to a martyr-like sense of selflessness that may be more destruction to the person, since they will devoid themselves of what they need themselves. I think the term is giving someone the shirt off your back. It might sound honorable, but in fact the less you are able to care for yourself, the less you can do for others.

[Vagrant0]

Also, I'd like to touch on another thing that came to mind when I was reading you guy's replies. It was about the mask and my understanding is that there really is a persona we carry deep inside us that is our inner child. Through the many years of our growth we have learned to wrap a coating of invulnerability around this inner child, so that we can protect that entity from cold and callous world around us. Each time we are hurt, for any reason, even if it is all in our minds we through up a new wall between us and them.

 

That is the dilemma of aging. The self is both fixed and mutable. But I would argue that this inner child, or original self is either something we try and tell ourselves, or is something that would naturally vanish as the brain ages. On both a chemical and a cellular level there are distinct differences between the brain of a 5 year old and the brain of a 25 year old even if they were the same person. As one ages near 13 or 14, their brain hits the peak of cellular density. By the time they get into their 20's, that density is much less (even without the presence of physical or chemical abuse)... Something has to be lost in this process as the brain tries to optimize itself to save energy for growth in other parts of the body. Hormones also affect mood and behavior. With sexual maturity comes an entirely different chemical combination that is constantly flowing through your body. The combination of the two means that usually only those prominent traits from childhood remains. We only keep what is important to us. Even as we progress, then regress into old age, it is only those prominent traits that remain and which usually become more prominent as we stop wearing our various masks. But even while those prominent traits may seem fixed, they can certainly be changed over time due to personal effort or long term circumstance. Again, we only keep what is important to us.

 

Arguably, those people searching for an inner child are just fooling themselves and trying to fabricate something that exemplifies what being a child means to them. Often because they realize something was lost, or because they want to escape the pressures of adult life, or because they want to revert to simpler times. This is also probably why seeing someone try this feels significantly more creepy and artificial than someone doing normal leisurely activities... Even when those activities aren't necessarily connected with a particular age group.

 

 

As for seflessness... I would agree with some parts, but disagree with it being a terminal state of loneliness. Just in the same way I would disagree with the opposite statement of only being able to love others if you, yourself are selfish or concerned mostly with your own happiness. While there are possibly some connections between how much you care about yourself verses caring about others, I would say that the two can exist quite easily despite eachother. There are certainly people who maintain selfless behaviors entirely because they care for others... Just as there are people who maintain selfish behaviors without concern for others.

[Lisnpuppy]

I'm curious Vagrant-and I ask since you discuss aging here and you are not obligated to answer here but what decade do you find yourself? Because I find your comment interesting and I kinda want to look at a bit deeper. And I have no plans to say, you do or do not have a perspective based on this, but rather I wish to compare if we are of different decades.