what the hell is identity?? Part 34,678,303,886,103,562 of 34,678,303,886,108,453

i was sitting very quietly in my room relaxing, the music had just stopped playing and i began to listen to all the subtle noises audible within the confines of my bedroom in the back corner, and realized the immensity of the quantity of stimuli that our minds are able to detect and analyze which led to the thought that the only difference between what we pay attention to and what we ignore is the intensity of the stimulus (don't ask me by what criteria that is measured) and its relation to the system of selectivity of our individual brains - individual, of course, implying that each of our brains has a subconscious set of "rules" by which it operates, each of us categorizes the incoming stimuli in a unique manner. this all leads to the question of: what is it that has brought these rules into existence? obviously one would say that an instinct would be a part of those rules, and that it is something almost universal enough to not be labeled as relative - stimuli at a cellular level we relate to genetic origins and proper functioning of the organs (excreting hormones, producing proteins, metabolizing molecules), that we could almost just label as life, as having life. but we speak about some people being smarter than others, or wiser than others, or funnier than others, but all that is is the result of the brain having reacted in a certain way to certain stimuli in the past, placing importance on them or filing them away in a more efficient (or merely different..the term efficient is slightly relative in its nature). so then what was it about that brain that had it place importance on those certain bits of information or pay attention to what others had ignored?? did the brain itself merely have a more "healthy" life? are there nutritious elements involved? genetic? statistical?
our identity, our character is the manifestation of our subconscious analysis and evaluation of, and then response to the stimuli we receive throughout our lives. but what is it that determines that process of analysis-evaluation-response? is it passed genetically from one generation to the next (nature)? or acquired through the type of stimuli to which you have been exposed (nurture) ? we claim ownership of this process and baptize it as the soul, the ego, the inner spirit, etc. At this point in time nearly any argument is as valid as any other. when one looks at the world and its history, it is evident that everything has stimulus and response, but because of the immense numbers of stimuli and because each of us has our own, unique manner of processing them, it is impossible to explain the true "why's" behind so many of life's occurrences, there are far too many factors to be included. it leaves you asking what that stimulus-->response process really is.



side note. what exactly is the definition of nurture? is it a phase with a finite beginning and end (relative to hormonal development? relative to specific events in one's life?)? or is it a continuous process? i feel it is often used as a reference to one's younger years, implying the existence of a point at which one is no longer "being nurtured". i dont think there exists such a point because the reason one would search for that point is to investigate the mind of man, and its tendencies to groups things together and quantify everything, to search for a logic behind the occurrences in this world, thus searching for that point would be an exercise in trying to define some absolute that is merely a constituent of an idea, something entirely non-physical, a secondary identity of something, an attribute. it is slightly removed from the actual identity, it exists entirely in the world of thought.

as i hear myself say this, these are merely the thoughts that leading investigators and researchers have in a myriad of fields of knowledge, and the investigation and research that they do is what we label as science, something that people would agree is mostly good. perhaps this specific thought is not of much import, but then again classifying it by its significance is an exercise in relativity, as each will arrange the importance of certain activities in comparison to others in his or her own manner..

a cada uno lo suyo

Me acuerdo cuando hace tiempo me di cuenta en una conversación con un amigo de lo indefinible que son las relaciones sociales y de que realmente cada persona tendrá su propia idea sobre cómo es cada relación en su vida, incluso aquellas en las cuales esa persona no forma parte. esto será porque nosotros basamos nuestras concepciones del carácter de una relación tanto en las experiencias compartidas con los involucrados como en lo que nuestro ego quiere que representen esas personas en nuestra vida. en los momentos en que te enteras de algo y dices (o en voz alta o a ti mismo/a) 'no sabía que conocía(s) a esa persona' o 'no imaginaba a esa persona haciendo tal cosa' etc, te das cuenta de que lo que sabes de esa persona es solamente una concepción tuya, obviamente limitada por no estar siempre con esa persona, por no conocer sus pensamientos y deseos. Eckhart Tolle argumenta en su libro 'a new earth' que en cada relación entra el ego de las dos personas, cada uno con su concepción de sí mismo y del otro. por lo tanto, en cada relación existen cuatro concepciones de identidades distintas, lo cual afecta la manera de la cual se relaciona esa genta. interesante. siempre tenemos nuestras idea preconcebidas y nuestros prejuicios y probable que sea casi imposible que aquellas ideas preformadas no influyan en nuestro comportamiento. también hace surgir la cuestión de nuestra identidad, o sea siquiera una tenemos..

pero, ¿somos lo que nosotros creemos que somos?, ¿somos cómo nos ven los demás? ¿existe nuestra identidad en las mentes de todo el mundo, repartida y variada? ¿o se halla nuestra identidad fuera de las concepciones del ego?

yo no soy a quién preguntar..