ga_woo: Identity threat

Gavri Fernandez (

ga_woo) wrote,
@ 2006-04-27 12:08:00

Identity threat
I want my identity threatened. I'm getting jealous of people who get their identity threatened.

The problem, of course, is that I identify only with myself.

Do I need to develop a split personality and identify with the other personality?

Do you suppose that there's someone out there with a split personality, but with both personalities identical? How would they ever know they have a problem? (Haha!)

(These may or may no be rhetorical questions.)

(rhetorical. rhetorical. can never get enough of that word. makes me feel smart everytime i use it.)

(Post a new comment)

	jace 2006-04-27 09:16 am UTC (link)
	-1, Troll. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-04-27 09:20 am UTC (link)
	Just like, I'm sure, more than 90% of religious people who read my previous post thought that was a troll. I got only two comments from theists, and one of them is my brother. And he accused me of 'flaming'. He doesn't know what 'flaming' means, exactly. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-04-27 09:23 am UTC (link)
	And the other comment was anonymous. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-04-27 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	Actually three people. I forgot about vijucat (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

vijucat
2006-04-28 08:05 am UTC (link)

I'm a not-sure-ist : It could all be chemical goo, some of which thinks too much of itself, or it could be almighty God's pinball machine.

But this much I know : I often don't get along with people who believe in God, especially women. I start looking for ways to screw with their (blind) faith. OTOH, people who don't believe are more interesting to converse with, probably because they use their brain more, to question, and to defend themselves against the guilt-purveying God-wankers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ga_woo
2006-04-28 08:11 am UTC (link)

Yeah, suddenly I remembered out conversation in Cafe Odyssey and how you mentioned 'souls' and all and realised that you are definitely not an atheist. I shouldn't have ignored the possibility that you are agnostic.

OTOH, people who don't believe are more interesting to converse with, probably because they use their brain more, to question, and to defend themselves against the guilt-purveying God-wankers.

Yeah, I agree. I was there, so I know. I was a believer and only now I realise all the different ways I had to obscure my thought process just to keep my faith.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	davenchit 2006-04-29 01:31 pm UTC (link)
	Belief in souls and an afterlife can exist independently of a lack of/belief in god. The fact that the two sets of beliefs are often associated does not imply they are necessarily associated. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ga_woo
2006-04-29 05:50 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, but then is this person really atheist when someone else redefines God to mean Our Collective Conscious? It gets even worse when someone says "God is Everything. Everything is God."
"But don't we already have a word for 'everything'? I think it's spelt E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

Or should we just go with what a person claims to be? For example, if someone says: I think there are alien beings, some of whom interact indirectly with us earthlings and keep track of our Karma. I don't believe in "God" though. I'm an atheist.

Is zhe an atheist? I don't know.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

davenchit
2006-05-02 04:59 am UTC (link)

>"God is Everything. Everything is God."

If someone has a definition of god and insists that such a god exists, then I'd say that person is a theist. In this case, a pantheist. The object of worship isn't the point, the fact of belief and the definition of that object as god, is.

>I'm an atheist.

Sure, but you would also be superstitious. Atheism and superstition are not mutually exclusive, though the various forms of theism(that I know of) are always superstition. The point is, really, that atheism in itself simply implies a lack of belief in god. It doesn't always imply superior rationality [though some people do arrive at a position of atheism rationally]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ga_woo
2006-05-02 07:28 am UTC (link)

The object of worship isn't the point, the fact of belief and the definition of that object as god, is.

This hypothetical person isn't worshiping Everything. And it's not even a belief. Zhe just has a simple definition of God: God is everything. Now 'everything' is not moral. It doesn't care if you worship it or not. Is this person a pantheist too?

Sure, but you would also be superstitious. Atheism and superstition are not mutually exclusive, though the various forms of theism(that I know of) are always superstition. The point is, really, that atheism in itself simply implies a lack of belief in god. It doesn't always imply superior rationality [though some people do arrive at a position of atheism rationally]

So those alien beings are not Gods? My alien beings keeping track of Karma seemed like a typical polytheistic religion to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

davenchit
2006-05-02 08:04 am UTC (link)

A god concept doesn't have to be moral or the source of morality. I know people who believe exactly this: god is everything. They are aware that "everything" does not require or demand worship and that it is not a source of morality. They define themselves as theists. But these people are not simply engaging in semantic reassignment: "god" is a bridging word that links a set of concepts(e.g., source of wonder and awe) with everything that exists. (let's not get into solipsistic arguments about brains in vats here)
Someone who is not redefining "god" in this manner is merely playing at semantic reassignment. S/he may as well say: "A Porsche is an armadillo". That statement has some truth value, but,unsupported by any othe propositions it says little about that person's belief system.

>I think there are alien beings, some of whom interact indirectly with us earthlings and keep track of our Karma.

Sorry, forgot to respond to that comment in your previous post.

Yeah, your alien beings do have the attributes that are commonly associated with gods. So you would then be a theist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	vijucat 2006-04-27 01:02 pm UTC (link)
	Can you elaborate? How do these popular people get their identity threatened? For example, an impostor creates ga__woo?, giving one the perfect, "OMG, how horrible, squeeal" opportunity? (Reply to this) (Thread)

ga_woo
2006-04-27 02:14 pm UTC (link)

Actually, this is about a few posts on

bangalore where some claimed that their identity (Kannadiga identity or something) was being threatened. It's the result of some kind of something, I have no idea what :P And then I started wondering how my identity could be threatened. What would have to happen? And then I made this post, which I myself don't understand :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Alter Ego (Anonymous) 2006-04-27 06:02 pm UTC (link)
	I guess,Your identity would be threatened, the day you meet your alter ego.And make this person a part of your active life.This Mr.Alter Ego will be so much like yourself,that people around you would mistake that person for you...and there you go..your identity threatened...:) -Jo (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Alter Ego ga_woo 2006-04-28 08:27 am UTC (link)
	Actually everything you see on this journal is my alter ego :P (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kalyancreddy 2006-04-27 06:47 pm UTC (link)
	Don't you possess a credit card? Drop it somewhere on the way to your home tomorrow. I'm sure by the day-after, you'll get what you wished for! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-04-28 08:27 am UTC (link)
	Aggaaaaaain, that is not what I meant! :D (Reply to this) (Parent)

	praveenkumarg 2006-04-27 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	morph yourself into a split personality !!! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-04-28 08:28 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I just can't decide what my other personality should be. I'm thinking some kind of Casanova-like character. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	davenchit 2006-04-29 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but a great part of identity is a socialised construct. You can always be in conflict with that. You can also be in conflict with yourself about which bits of your identity are socialised and which are not. It is fertile ground for schizophrenia. (Reply to this) (Thread)

ga_woo
2006-04-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)

But how is it threatened? I still don't understand that.

Whenever I see anyone post that their identity is being threatened, it's always because they're seeing less people like them. Wouldn't that actually strengthen their identity, you know? Establish it. Make it more obvious.

For example, if I wake up someday and notice that everybody looks like me, behaves like me, that is the way my identity could be threatened - maybe I still don't understand what identity-threat means. But what I see is people claiming the opposite. They want everyone else to be like them so that their "identity is not threatened". The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

davenchit
2006-05-02 06:23 am UTC (link)

Well...I was actually being obscure and facetious, but given your serious response, I will reply accordingly.

You're defining identity differently from those people.

You: Identity is what sets me apart from other people. I am uniquely defined by how I differ from other people. If that uniqueness is threatened, my identity is threatened.

They: Identity is defined by the groups that we belong to. When the group/s is/are threatened, my identity is threatened.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

ga_woo
2006-05-02 07:36 am UTC (link)

Just to make sure, by "groups are threatened" you mean "people are leaving the group"?

Yeah, yeah, I know what you mean and kind of knew it before I even asked the question. "Identity-threat" just seemed to me a bit disingenuous. As if someone was creating clones out there. Maybe something less romantic, like Herd-Identity threat is more appropriate. That's what I'm going to use from now on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

davenchit
2006-05-02 07:51 am UTC (link)

>you mean "people are leaving the group"?

You know what I mean, but I'll spell it out anyway for the sake of jobless third prties who might be browsing this thread. :)
Threats to groups are more often than not perceived, not real. Pretty much anything can be projected as a threat to the group if your propaganda machine is good enough. So no, it doesn't have to be people leaving the group. E.g. The aryans are threatened because of a world-spanning conspiracy involving powerful and rich jews.
Christians are threatened because the ten commandments are not plastered all over courtrooms.

>That's what I'm going to use from now on.

Certainly. But here's a basic problem with the term herd-identity. It is defined in terms of what it is *not*. For example, the term "Hindu" (as used by Hindutvadis) includes such a wide diversity of beliefs and practices that the only practical way it can be defined is as "non-Muslim".
There's nothing "disingenuous" about the term identity threat- it is common usage even among those who study politics and history. There is something extremely disingenous about the nature of identity threats.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	walkingscarlet_ 2006-08-22 11:47 am UTC (link)
	Actually, this is like the term "hunger strike" - what are you striking from? Being hungry? Then eat more! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ga_woo 2006-09-01 11:59 am UTC (link)
	Maybe it's more like Nuclear Strike :P I will strike thee down with my hunger! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs