There is a lot of talk regarding identity swirling around in popular conversation today. Among my generation much of this conversation is in reference to personality-typing systems like Love Languages, Meier-Briggs, and Strength-finders. At Olivet this conversation is centered around the Enneagram, probably the most philosophically aware personality-typing system when properly understood. All of these conversations claim to be aimed at helping our communities better understand themselves and operate more efficiently, but there is a deeper motivation to these conversations. This motivation deals directly with a key aspect of the human condition, and that is the existence of the self.
We are obsessed with the self. We move away, we go on long trips, we break up relationships, we leave jobs, we start new careers: all in an effort to “find ourselves”. So where does this idea of the self come from? Where are the roots of identity and distinction between persons? What separates me from you? Who are the key players in the game of self-building? What are the pros and cons of self-building? Is any of this differentiation real? What do religion and sociology have to say about it? These questions are the subject of The Cogitator’s series: On Self.
The study of the self can be quite trippy and deconstructive, so hang on with me as we get into the self-referential nature of these ideas and define key terms.
Self: a reference of an individual to the individuality of the individual making the reference. (see where this gets trippy?)
Ego: the conscious self that seems to be responsible for decision making and accomplishment/failure. This is the operative form of the self; our inner dialogue.
Id: the subconscious self that consists of the underlying mechanisms of our psychology/neurology. The conditioned aspects of our self that we do not have active control over. Our basic drives and instincts.
Consciousness: Another way of referring to the ego/id relationship as a whole, particularly when referring to the social aspects of the self.
None of these definitions are wholly accurate, as the ideas represented by the words are far too complex for a few descriptive sentences, but they give a basic idea of what I mean when I use them. The clarification of these terms is a basic goal of this series. Likewise, these concepts are not necessarily reflective of reality, but they are the way the conversation around self has been framed by countless others, so they are useful.
My engagement with this topic largely comes from the type of art that I enjoy, so I will be making occasional references to these artworks as they intersect our conversation. In fact, it is my belief that all art comes into contact with the question, what is it to be human?, at some level.
Let’s get into ourselves.