It is with my instinctual observation and scrutiny, that according to my Internet searched data, the etymology of the word identity derives from the Latin root that means, being in a state of “sameness” (L. ident– (neuter) “the same”) in spite of the constant changes of the social environment(s), or setting(s), that a person may be exposed to. Identity is to be “uniformed,” unable to change: something, or some-person that’s constant in being, not just persistently and consistently, for these particular permanence are also subject to changes as well. According to the world’s social coagulum of the earth, it seems that identity has a broad meaning when it comes to distinguish one person from another: for example, The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), on occasions, he/she might think that labeling one-self to a certain class or group will help that-self to then identify his/her own unique identity: on the contrary, that might just be an illusion (i.e., an illusion in the sense that something may not be what it seems to be, and not in the sense that something isn’t real), because the actuality of being labeled is not to identify a person uniquely, but more to “collectively classify” a person to a certain kind of group: In this realization, a labeled person becomes like others within that same group (e.g., religious beliefs, sexual preferences, political standings, and or racial movements groups; etc.): in which that person will then think the same as in terms of the groups’ purposes concerning rights, morals, principles, virtues and values; and he/she might even embody some collective fads within the group, such as with styles, iconography and behaviors. So where then is the actual identity if such a word is to identify one non-collectively? Is identity an exclusive language of The-Self? Can identity itself be also an illusion?
The actual true disposition of identity is to differentiate one-self from others in a non-collective actuation, or to set one-self apart from other collective labels in uniformity, and with constant sameness. Labeling, on the other hand, is to classify an individual to a group classed category that are instead alike in “collective sameness,” thus causing an individual to cease from his/her own sole identity in order to then embody a collective label, and thus be classified as a “collective” instead of as a “singularity.” The actual rooted concept of identity is to describe something that just is (e.g., your finger prints), that will always stay the same (in “sameness”): and the actual concept of labeling is to describe what is subjectively posited from The-Self, in which that’s also subject to changes. Hence, when used in actuality, it seems that identity might not even be applicable to The-Self at all when used figuratively; that it might just be an illusion in of itself when The-Self tries to make its meaning applicable in relation to his/her ever constant changes of metaphorical self-reflective personages: after all, The-Self, as an individual, is constantly changing more than constantly being uniformed: When it comes to the ego, nothing really is constant in like “sameness” even though the changes themselves are constant. One must keep in mind that the actual nature of The-Self is to be a “changeling.” The-Self has multiple external beings (objects) outside of him/her-self that he/she transforms with from one to another, as need be; and depending upon the nature of his/her external environments and settings, a-self can transform him-/her-self at will (e.g., a woman can be a teacher during the day, and a mother during the evening, and a wife during the night; and during the interval embodiments of her titles, she transforms in dispositions, actuation and behaviors): this is what makes The-Self a “changeling” by nature; this is because the subjective internal ego self-reflects with multiple objective external labels, either at work, home, school or any other community meetings; changing in between them depending upon the time, the person and the place. There really is no “singularity in sameness” when the concept of identity is used figuratively and metaphorically, in relations to transformations and transcendence. However, when identity is used objectively and literally in reference to our biological makeup, e.g., our finger prints are usually in “sameness;” and so when they are legally used to describe who you are in a file, that is what then becomes your literal identity in like constant “sameness.” Even legal documents (e.g., social security numbers, birth certificates, identification cards, etc.) are your literal identity (“sameness”); however, although these documents can also be subject to changes, that doesn’t mean that you’ve changed the actual identity; it just mean that you’ve accepted a new identity that mostly serves to objectively identify you within the law as a “pseudo new sameness” for the hidden current “old sameness,” and not necessarily you as a subjective persona. So it seems that on a literal basis, identity is after all for external use, and therefore, of peripheral origins, which can then be applicable for objective exterior purposes. But what of the interior domain of an individual? What of a person who is either experiencing or feeling who he/she really is internally? What then is the proper term to use in regards to describe the ever constant changes of what one is inwardly?
Since we’ve learned that true identity is constant sameness (uniformity: immutableness) and not constant changes (transformation: transcendence); and since we’ve come to know that the true nature of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”) is naturally capacitated to mentally evolve, and thus be a “changeling;” to then use the term identity in order to describe what one is internally is totally erroneous, because what the ego is internally changes constantly, as oppose to constantly remaining in “sameness.” so it seems that The-Self’s identity is more of external origin, and not internal at all: This may be because, after all, it is the world that supplies The-Self its own compositions of external objects, and not really The-Self itself. The external objects of The-Self is achieved by external origin only; hence, it is the world, and not you, that provides The-Self the many compositions of individuality as an ‘identity’ when in actuality, you, as a-self, are really being classified in a category with others like your–self: In this realization, individuality really takes in a new meaning (e.g., individuality = being unable to divide your–self from others within the same group; instead of the origin use of being unable to divide you from your-self); hence, there’s really no actual independent ‘identity’ for The-Self itself, except for his/her own finger prints, and the chronology history of one’s life attached to legal filed documentations—that is the actual extent of The-Self’s true “identity”—the only “sameness” identity that The-Self is able to actually retain, as well as maintain: the only literal factual identity. So, in all reality, The-Self is always labeled (classified) with others in the same-like “group-sameness.” What than still separates one-self from others if The-Self itself has no actual internal identity, except for his/her own exterior legal filed fingerprints, and filed history documentations?
Even though The-Self is not in possession of an internal literal identity, what differentiates a-self from another is how he/she experiences the label that he/she is collectively classified to, or in: It is The-Mind itself that differentiates a mind from another. It’s not the label that a-self is categorized to differentiate him/her-self from others within the same class, and certainly not the legal history identity documentations either, but The-Mind itself too is like a finger print when it comes to mental sentient experiences; even though, for say in a gay and lesbian community group, gay members might be in the same frame of mind in terms of its collective ethics, truths and movements; nevertheless, how each and every one of them experiences their gayness is unique. Does this then means that The-Mind itself is then an identity? No, because even The-Mind of a-self, in of itself, is not an object itself, or a being for that matter, for The-Self to then think that he/she can self-reflect with it as if it’s some kind of an entire being in of itself. Because The-Self is a “changeling,” The-Self itself is unable to obtain an internal identity; there is no internal “sameness,” no interior “uniformity” or “immutableness” in The-Self at all—not even with its own internal subject (the-Ego), because the-Ego itself is also subject to constantly change inwardly: besides, the subject that is subject to changes cannot become the object itself, for only the objects are “sameness.” Think about it, if the internal subject (the-Ego) were to become an internal object of sameness, can then that new internal object, that was then internally subjective, still continue to be subjective with everything he/she comes into contact with? Of course not! An internal subject (the-Ego), cannot and will not become an internal object (an internal identity); hence, the actual so-called identities of The-Self is external and not internal—the internalized-Ego can only retain purity; in other words, it must remain without actual interior formations in order to then remain subjective with everything else. An actual and real identity entails formations without changes; without transformations, metamorphosis, revisions, transitions, rebirths and modifications—the fact that “identities” can even be traded or switched with accordingly to The-Self, it is then a testimony that The-Self, in all actuality, is then unable to retain an actual internal immutable identity. After all, it is only the fingerprints and legal documentations that do not change at all no matter how much The-Self may change in between eluded so-called transient identities, in order that he/she may then even try to separate him/her-self from the unchanging actual identities that the-World has legally established, separate from you, its own connections and associations with. It is also known that some-selves may change so much in between identities (labels) that he/she may lose his/her own sense of true-self. So, in all actuality, those “identities” that The-Self consistently and persistently changes in and out of, are nothing more but labels, and not identities. Once a person’s mind legally connects, or associates even, with his/her own actual exterior identity documentations, there’s no turning back, legally. The-Self simply cannot and will not change the legal history established in and by the law that’s connoted to his/her own legal documentations. Surely, you can change the first and last names, and maybe even the social security numbers; but the legally filed history to that birth certificate and social security card number (e.g., if you were imprisoned, or are a registered sex offender) is still immutable and unchanging according to the legal world. But what of the “no-self” (the “Not-I”) that my being is: how does the criteria of identity corresponds with my form of being, as being the death of “The-Self?”
It’s pretty much the same with those who are mentally actuated with the mental experiences of The-Self’ (the-Ego/the “I”) concept. However, because my being is the “no-self” (egoless/the “Not-I”), and therefore IT is also non-reflective and non-subjective, my exterior legal documentations are really one of the world’s legal identity, specifically for its legal use in its judicial house: so there’s never been any association from my end with the-World’s legal identity documentations assigned to my soul: The only use that those documentations have for my being is to help itself obtain worldly needs, like a pass, or a “go” card of some sort: but since my mind has never “identified” with them personally, they have no “internuncial” use for my psyche-being: if there is any association (identity) with those assigned legal documentations to my soul (animating physical body), it would have to be from the judicial house itself that’s making the connections (identities) with them, and not from my being itself. Because of this unique experience of my mind, some might ask, “But to what then is the extent that allows The Law to determine who a person really is internally?” The answer to that question is a straight, “none!” The Law can only enforce the associations (identities) that it itself makes with them; and hopefully, The Law then expects that you too will then associate (identify) your-self with them as well. But you are not your legal papers as The Law would want you to believe that you are. Only you can determine you: not The Law. Remember that it’s only the history that you manifest with your assigned legal documentations that remain in “sameness;” so manifest them well. Also remember that in order for your assigned legal documentations become associated (identified) with your-self, affiliating (identifying) with they must first come from your end: it’s a two way partisan, joining together in with The Law and your-self. So now that we’ve established that the exterior assigned legal documentations do not serve an identity purpose for the “no-self” (the “Not-I”) that my being is, what then of interior use does it have for IT itself? Since there’s no internal subject in my form of being, but only an internal object, can it then be possible that unlike “The-Self,” the “no-self” can actually attain literal interior identity?
The answer to that question is with a straight, “no.” Just like the people, who are mentally actuated with the concept of “The-Self,” the “no-self” that my being is, IT too is of no exception to the rule that identity is not interior. Actually, as the “Not-I” that my being is, anything connoted with identity (e.g., association; connection; affiliation; compatriotic; etc.) is of no use at all to IT itself. Since my form of being just goes on being, IT just is: IT itself is non-subjective, and therefore, IT cannot be self-reflective and self-perspective. The process and disposition of “identifying” anything goes through a process that my being calls, “subjective actuation;” in whereas an individual, not a dividual, self-reflects him-self with the criteria that’s being considered for possible identity self-applicable. Since there’s no sense of subjectivity in my form of being, IT itself cannot even consider to self-reflect with any identity applications since IT itself does not even have a-self to begin with. Therefore, exteriorly and interiorly, my being cannot associate (identify) in any way, form or manner in/with anything, or anybody else. To associate, is to identify; and to identify, is to be subjective. Therefore, the application of “identity” is of no use for my form of being: IT itself, therefore, goes on being as undefined: and not as disassociated, but never associated to begin with. The concept of “identity” is therefore useless for my being: IT has no need for it, and IT never will. Since my being can never be defined, IT itself can then never be “redefined” either; in other words, “changed:” and that is the very explanation to the nature of my “sameness status:” that even though my being has no use for the application of “identity,” yet, IT itself is still uniformed and immutable (in “sameness”), the very thing that the concept of “identity” is supposed to supply The-Self with, and yet, it really doesn’t. Hence, the concept of “sameness,” in the description of “identity,” is then but an illusion in of itself when used figuratively internally. The reality of it all is that “internal sameness” is without identity, and not with.
The moment that The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”) starts to define him/her-self, is the moment that he/she is imminent to also be redefined; like every child that is imminent to become an adult: To define one-self is to be redefined without abort, but reborn. And thus, that’s what makes The-Self a changeling; never in sameness. Only the no-self (the “Not-I”), as such is my being, can obtain “internal sameness” without identity. What a paradox!
[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]
[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]
[Aspaty: Hexaspace, Dormicycle 25, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar North)]