How should I define myself?  Should I say, "I do this,
therefore, I an that which I do"? or should I say, "I think
this, therefore, I am that which I think"? or "I feel this,
therefore, I am that which I feel"?  In what terms does one
come to understand himself?
        Or am I incorrect in assuming that I can define myself
at all?  Perhaps my definition is that which others say I am.
Yet, how can that be?  My enemies will surely say I am
something other than that which my friends say I am.

71 responses total.

Actually, I fall into the bizarre category of "I am that which I do,
and that which I think, and that which I feel, and that which I am, and
probably a whole lot of other things I don't even know I am."  Reality
is way too complex to isolate in such a manner.  (IMHO)

That's enlightening, I hadn't thought of it that way, as a combination ot the
things that I do, think, and feel.  But I still struggle with the question of
others, and what they think I am, or whether i should care what others think
of me.

I'd take issue with anyone who wanted to consider a pern's "definition"
in a single dimension, any single dimension. Even in a book or movie,
it is the "single dimension cahracter" who receives all the flack,
expecially if it's a lead role. Since single dimensioned characters
aren't appreciated, or *valued*, in film/print, how can a real-life
pern be appreciated if only a ssigle dimension is "permitted?" 
  
Can't.
  
One of the ways of diminishing a human worth is to reduce that human
to a single dimension, ususally the most negative possible.

Thank you, that was very insightful.  I really appreciate all of your 
responses.  Grex, is a great place to bounce my ideas off of people like
yourselves.  Thanx again!

re #2
  Others can only judge you by what you say and do.  As to how much
you should care what others think, the answer is it depends on the
person.  If it's a person that you respect, I'd say yes you should
care.

Source-credibility is important, sure, but, imo, not quite as important
as the message transferred.

Why define anything?

Try doing whatever seems to make sense at the time for a while.  Do your
job because it lets you eat, then spend some of your other time helping
other people do things they've decided are worth doing...you can do that
in a way that you like, so it won't be exactly what those other people
want, but there's where you can take your sense of self from.

I'm comfortable as long as I can say I wouldn't have done anything different
given what I knew at the time.

A very wise man once said...
  I yam what I yam an thats all that I yam

As far as I can tell, I am what I feel like I am. 

"we are not what we think we are.
 we are not even what others think we are.
 we are what we think others think we are."
                                -I dunno
I have found this to be true, except when I think about it and go out of my 
way to change it.

(I remember once that other put forth the theory that we define ourselves
by what we do, i.e., "I'm a student." "I'm a cook." "I'm a criminal." I
haven't decided whether I agree or not, but I thought I'd throw that out
for discussion.)

Hmmm.  To an extent, yes, but I think that none of us can be
described/contained by labels like this.  I think that we certainly aren't
simply one thing, but a mixture of many such things, even the most simple of
us.  

(you make it sound as if people only really do one thing. I can do
several, at once even!)

(not that I'm defending other's position as my own... yet.)

I do?  that was precisely the point I was trying to negate.  Forgive me if 
I worded my response wrong.  All of us can do many things at the same time,
and this is why labels like "student", etc, don't fit us.  

the only label that fits me is Daniel Gryniewicz.  (or maybe 377-94-5693,m
with one number changed, to protect myself)
(not that i don't trust you, but who knows who the link will bring?)

(do you mean that these labels don't fit at all, or that they don't 
describe you sufficiently?)

no label accurately describes me.  these, at least, point to me uniquely. 
(and before you ask, there are no other Daniel Gryniewicz's in the world)

Gerund accurately describes me.

somehow, i doubt you'r so easily described...

I, too.  

Who says that's an 'easy' description?

(ok, so if I were to call dang a student, I'd be incorrect?)

(I hope his teachers don't think so... ;>)

Labels are just that... labels.
Most of them, like student for example, only describe one small aspect
of a person.  Names, on the other hand, are USUALLY quite individual
and definitely conjure up a specific thing.
For example... say student and people think of a general group of people.
Say Gerald E. Peck and people either know him or they don't, but the
name brings to mind only one person.
As soon as I can dig it up I'll post a little excerpt from an old
dictionary I have describing 'name tabu'.  It's interesting that I just
recently talked to Anne about how a name is the only real description of
yourself that you have... that's when the 'name tabu' article first
caught my eye... Anyhow.. I'll post it next login.

don't forget the ss #, which is unique in the us.

Actually, no it's not.  there have been numerous problems with people
having the same soc sec #.  There are only 1,000,000,000 different 
numbers after all, with 200,000,000+ Americans today.

(so there are four times as many possible SSN as there are current
Americans, and there's a problem? did I miss something there?)

(Actually, five times.)  It would be a problem if they were assigned
sequentially, but they're not.  They're coded, and then randomized,
or something like that.  Driver's Licenses are likewise coded.
(So, if you know what you're doing, you can verify someone's dl as
belonging to them... Mine starts K 620 676, which reveals that my
last name starts Ker and my first name starts Pa and I'm male, or
something like that.)  So, if two people have the same name, and
certain other things are the same, they'll have the same dl.  Something
similar holds for ss#, but I don't know the code.

I like labels to start with and then peeling them off of people to see 
who is underneath.  I f I give people my first three personal labels
then they judge me for those labels not for myself....I have just
contradicted myself big time....   Oh well.

Ouchy!  Them labels stick on tight, and sometimes pull off beard stubble.

Right.  I don't think there is any label that would come anywhere close to
describing me, unless it were "weird."  But neither do I think my name 
describes me accurately; that is, it doesn't tell people anything about me,
unless they already know me.  

I was talking to my brother about my religion, and about telling my 
mother, and he said, "Oh, don't worry, she already thinks you're weird."
So I asked her if she thought I was weird, and she said, "No... you're
just... unique."

(hey! that's a SYNONYM!)

Hmmm...maybe I use labels to throw at people so that they will
have a preconcieved notion about me....dyke,witch,femme,loo-loo lala...

well, if enough labels are mixed in the right proportions, then the result
is a fairly good picture of the individual.

(I'd rather use labels to help describe a person than to pigeonhole. *I*
know who carson is, but that doesn't mean that everyone else does, so I
don't mind trying to define such for others.)

Exactally.  We can only communicate (with words) ourselves in terms of
labels.  It is the job of the listener to not use those labels to
pigeonhole. 

then what should those labels be used for?

To attempt to understand the person.  If this is pigeonholling into very
small compartments that only hold one, then so be it.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss