I am a human.
I am a man.
I am a woman.
I am an atheist.
I am a theist.
I am a... Christian... Muslim... Jew... etc.
I am etc.
I am a... You are a ... They are a ...
These terms can help to provide a quick reference to aspects of ourselves. But they can also be used to constrict and restrict an accurate understanding about ourselves. We can get sucked into these descriptive identification labels. They can bind our consciousness into a box where we live according to the definition of these descriptive labels.
We need to be mindful that just because someone doesn't believe the existence of something, doesn't mean they deny it either. Those who do believe in something, doesn't mean they belong to the same descriptive label as others who believe in something. Someone can believe in "God", yet that doesn't make them a Christian, they could be Muslim. Someone can not believe in "God", but that doesn't make them atheist either, they can simply acknowledge they don't know as an agnostic.
It's easy to hear someone describe themselves and immediately apply a label to their psychological framework. But that's only accurate if they adopt that descriptive label to define themselves. Then they adopt the ideas that the label construct puts forth. If one doesn't adopt a particular ideology or philosophy, one can share characteristics, properties, attributes, qualities or aspects of many other ideological constructs that have descriptive labels associated with them.
Sometimes a word can easily describe a simple part of us, like being human, etc., as well as more complex psychological aspects of ourselves. At other times a word might appear to reflect someone's psychological constructs from an outside view, but that word is only used as a quick reference from analogy or correspondence in order for us to attempt to understand more of what the person thinks. This can lead to false assumptions through the fallacy of blind correspondence as I call it. Just because a property of a philosophical construct, ideology, or belief is shared by someone, doesn't mean they ascribe or identify with that specific criteria.
I tend to stay away from identifying myself as being from ideological constructs or philosophical frameworks. Take the knowledge therein, don't just take everything -- nor at face value simply out of the mesmerizing effect of finding some truth in it somewhere and then blindly having faith, trust, loyalty and belief in it from buying into the belief being sold.
When we take certain ideological constructs into ourselves, we identify with them and merge them with parts of ourselves. We then identify with the descriptive labels that classify us according to someone else's definition. Identification with an idea or group can have us defend them group and ideas as if it were ourselves, even when the idea or group is wrong. We confine ourselves to prescribed definitions.
Sure descriptors help in general to communicate and understand more quickly, but we can get carried way too. Many who choose to identify with certain things don't see the flaws within that are based on incompatibility with principles of truth or moral truth. Many of us have -- and still do -- get carried away and become those descriptions and let them define who we are, keeping us locked into some state. But beyond those boxes there is potential for more, possibly more improvement and betterment that those boxes don't let us think outside of.
The ideas that have value and merit to be followed will stand on their own. The name or word given to them is for convenience. Don't get sucked into the group identification that can form around an idea, as it can limit our potential to excel beyond it.
Group-think, social conformity and the desire for attention and to belong can get us sucked into groups and ideas. Beware the power of consciousness ;)
Funny... your post reminds me of sitting in a workshop at the Omega Institute a million years ago; we were in the middle of "identifying" ourselves... or figuring out what labels we had attachments to. It's a very clear memory... I could never feel comfortable with anything beyond "I AM." Any further qualifiers felt silly... weird.
I learned something interesting... evidently, when I meet people and say "Hi, my name is Peter" (which is true) it's a far less common salutation than saying "Hi, I am Peter." No I'm not... it's just a name.
The hidden messages in language fascinate me. We say so much without being aware that we're saying it.
Oddly enough, I love labels! Labels are awesome... AS LONG AS we just use them as what they are... "pieces of information." The problems begin when we start self-identifying with the labels.... and it seems that's pretty much what you're suggesting, as well.
It's a tricky business. Humans-- I feel-- are ultimately very "tribal" by nature... and labels help us find a sense of peer-group belonging; I'm an introvert, I'm Danish, I'm of Viking ancestry, I'm a MBTI INFJ... I'm all manners of "-ists." They are labels... but they are also invitations to connect.
Ramble over... just free-associating a bit, there...
Well I don't have a problem with "I am" or "I am a". I understand the basic "i am", but that is nothing but blank consciousness that is the similar basis for all human animal construction. We all share basic functionality and behavioral dynamics, but we are all individual, unique, and different in many way as well.
I am human. The word human exists to describe a specific type of animal, us. I am also not employed. I am many things. And they can accurately define me. I don't have apprehensions about describing myself.
LOL, yeah it's funny like you say, I have a name, given or chosen -- no I can't be a name, but that is part of my identity anyways. It identifies me from others. It's arbitrary compared to a word that actually defines a state of being. Names of personas don't define states of being ;) No categories of being in philosophical-metaphysics, so we can name ourselves anything hehe.
Indeed. The point is to remake, reconstruct and transform ourselves (alchemy) so that we learn to identify the false parts of who we think we are and learn to let go of them. Not to deny being able to say "I am" or "I am a", yet learn how we can fall for cognitive traps by limiting what we're seeing due to the restriction of labels or group identities, etc.
Labels are useful indeed, and they help us identify others on common or dissimilar grounds. Awareness of how we use them is how we can use them better hehe. Thanks for the feedback as usual ;)
I think that in some cases labeling ourselves or others can have a negative effect because it can cause division amongst members of society. Great post, upvoted and resteemed.
Yup, careful use rather than just using them willy-nilly is better ;) Thanks for the support :)
I always loved the native introduction best: " I am called Squanto." Not "I am Squanto" -- that equates to too much identification with our body and this mortal existence. Simply informing someone what you are called is establishing common language rather than identification.
Your post reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant: each felt a different body part of the elephant and characterized it differently. But if they would have had sight, they would have been able to see that all were different parts of the same whole.
So it is with life. We are all part of the same whole. Each perspective contains some kernel of truth. This is not the same as saying that all perspectives are equally valid, because that would be like saying that the blind man was correct when he felt the elephant trunk and said the elephant was like a snake. Rather, each perspective does relate to reality in some way.
Wisdom consists in striving to weave our separate impressions into a greater whole, to look for larger patterns.
The trend has been to apply more and more labels and to emphasize the differences in order to segregate and divide. So much conflict results :(
Well I find it strange that they are doing that but at the same time trying to make a One world government, one world religion and One world currency. Makes no sense. They have us all separated and fighting against one another while they strip our rights and freedoms and make us a new creation in their New world order. Yeah I want no parts of that!
Yup, and sometimes those differences matter too ;) but often they don't really as they aren't that important (not morally/harm related). It's each person that chooses one thing over another to identify with and bring into themselves as part of who they are. Truth and change take time. The important things like morality matter the most, and those differences can't just be compromised with compromise.
I think labels create divide, however, it also show who you are and what you stand for. Once people get too defensive about their 'labels', that's when conflicts arise. Good post @krnel. Upvoted and resteemed.
Attachment is the root of suffering, hehe. Thanks for the support.
So true! Just saw your new post... awesome :)
Be what you want to be but don't forget, you can be anything so why stick to something? ;)
We are many somethings, not just one ;)
But I hope one at a time, 'mkay? Split :P
ahh I agree. It is so easy to stick label on everyone... but we forget that humans are all unique and complex. Most things in life are not just black and white, but instead fall in gray scale.
Sometimes it's clear cut black and white, and sometimes it's indeed grey lol.
yup. sounds like life.
I think it would be best if everyone would just be appreciative of themselves and the rest would be much less important. As for labeling people, its just something people do to form a group and not feel isolated i guess. In the end were all human indeed
There's nothing inherently wrong with labels, but they can lead us astray at times. Groups forming isn't bad either, but we can get sucked into group-think, collectivism, etc. It's good I clarify this ;) Thanks for the feedback.
I wish it was easier to follow the beat of your own drum in a society that demands for you to join a flock or be identified with a certain flock. Trying to break free but it'll take a lot of time and effort. Thanks for the post. Timely with my issues right now
Your post is providing a very important warning and despite the fact that I try to think about this stuff when searching my own beliefs and while shopping for labels for myself, I surely don't mind hearing and being reminded of this warning over and over.
Still, I would disagree a bit with one of the labels you mentioned.
The working definition I am using for the term atheist is exactly someone who lacks belief in a deity. It's a common misconception that an atheist would be somebody who would say "I'm 100% certain a god does not exists" while most atheists I know (myself included) use the term to represent their belief that the claim that a god exist hasn't met it's burden of proof. Back in the day, I used to call myself an agnostic atheist just because I could not rule out the existence of god with absolute certainty (as it seems to be impossible). Then I realized the agnostic part was actually redundant as an atheist is somebody that is not convinced that a god exists, not somebody that necessarily denies its existence with absolute certainty. I feel most agnostics fall into the definition I'musing for atheist, but I wouldn't go as far as telling people what labels they should be using as the labels as you pointed out are not the most important thing. There is indeed a spectrum and labels might often be limiting and everybody should be the arbiter of their own label and if they want to ascribe themselves to one at all.
That's why it can apply or not depending on how someone defines it. Etymologically, a-thetism is not-god and a-gnostic is not-knowing, so the distinction is evident on the word itself that is meant to convey the meaning in it's construction. But I get that it has changed for many to mean as you say it. Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for this post krnel! I personally hate labels. How can we label human beings when we constant change. We are no more the same person today than we were yesterday. We need to stop labeling ourselves and others if we want to grow and open our hearts and minds
I don't have a problem with them in certain uses, but my point was more so that it can suck us into pigeon holes rather than looking at things more accurately. Some things about ourselves change, while others don't now but may later. We can describe those things. Just because we do change doesn't mean we can't. Using more specific wording to describe ourselves is always better than a general label.
This post oddly reminded me of a music video that just came out yesterday
I could have been anyone from anywhere, but I chose to be me from right here.
Adjectives are fine for descriptive purposes, but over the course of my life I've learned not to make jail cells out of them.
Yes yes and so much yes! Thank you for sharing a much needed perspective!
You're welcome ;)
Simply brilliant, thanks for the post @krnel. Those labels feed fixed minds. The best quality of the human being is its flexibility and its ability to evolve. The essence of life is change and as Bruce Lee said:
#Be Water My Friend ;)
Thanks for the feedback, yeah we change and are complex beings hehe.
I'm me, a human and what people think of me is their opinion and their point of view and in any way doesn't describe who I am, it's their perception.
I am Iams Dog Food
The only "I am" is God. The great "I am".
Before I start let me say I do agree with a lot of what you say but not all. People do label other people and then go by the generic stereotype of that label to put them in a box. I doesn't have to and shouldn't be that way. In this world we are all different and separate in our own ways. We all have different cultures, values and beliefs. How I see myself and what I believe in is just that. How someone else sees me is their opinion. My thoughts and actions define who I am and what I believe in. I am a Christian and the God I believe in has a son "Jesus Christ". I need to define that when I say God that I am talking about the Christian God. When someone says they believe in God unless defined can be a number of Gods. The Muslim God is not the same God as the Christian God and they see Jesus as a mere prophet. Jesus is the Savior who died on the Cross for our sins, he rose again in 3 days and ascended to the right hand of the father. Jesus is about to return to the earth again soon. Not as a lamb for slaughter this time, but as the Lion. Muslim faith is totally different and Jesus is a mere prophet. In Muslim faith it is not the same God and Jesus is not the son of God and not the one to return. There is a difference between the two and a difference which requires there to be a separation. What I choose to believe in is my choice and others choose to believe what they will. There has always been a separation and there always will be. How we choose to recognize the separation and deal with it is on us. That doesn't mean there has to be a hate associated with separation which is what so many do. We are all human and all the same but different at the same time. I refuse to be put into a mixed category of beliefs because the world says that's the way it should be. That's what the enemy wants. Jesus said that we are to be separate from the world and not be a part of it. The enemy tries to blend us in. NOT ME! I stand alone and I believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ. The Pope and the Vatican are pushing the Bestial system of One world government, one world religion(Stating we all believe in the same God) and a one world currency. I refuse to be a part of that and will stand separated and alone if I have to. So I choose to be labeled as a Christian. Someone that is not is not. There is too much blending going on in the world today while at the same time being separated in angry subcultures due to media hype. We are all different. We believe what we believe and I choose not to believe what others do and will not compromise just to get along. I agree we need to recognize the differences and separations amongst one another but that doesn't mean we can blend oil and water. Again there has to be separation. It's not the separation that's the problem, it's how we deal with it. We need to respect one another and respect others backgrounds and beliefs regardless if it aligns with ours or not. We don't need to conform to anyone elses beliefs because the world tells us to or we are brainwashed to do so. Satan (The enemy) is trying to mold everyones religion together. They are trying to mold Islam and Christianity together to make Chrislam and say we all believe in the same God. That is false.They are also trying to state that there are many paths to God when there is clearly only one and that is through Jesus Christ. He is the Way and the truth and the life as stated in the Bible. So I choose my own label and wear it proudly. I am a Christian and I make sure everyone knows it. Even unto my death! There needs to be separation. Not so much by labeling but by belief and how we deal with it is on us. Just because I believe in what I do doesn't give me the right to force my belief on you or anyone else or make them conform to my way. That has to be within the person themselves. They make the choice of what they want to be. When I talk to people about Jesus I always try to be sure they are accepting. If not then that is their choice and I move on. Sorry for the large rant.
I would argue that the Christian god is not actually the same god all over Christianity. It's a really fragmented religion and so is the concept of god. Since god is unknowable (if at all existent), the version of god vary quite a lot and the term the Christian God can have meanings almost as varied as the generic term god itself.
And what would make you say that? I see no where in the Bible where God changes. Please show me where. God -Revelation 1:8 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Did I say god changes in the Bible? I said the idea of the Christian god is fragmented which I maintain is actually the case. Ask a Southern Baptist, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Eastern Orthodox Christian and a Mormon what god is and what he demands from you and you find a lot of differences. So when many Christians say god, there are big differences in what they imagine god is.
That's why I say saying the Christian God is almost as unspecific as using the generic term god as there are so many sects of Christianity all with their own contradicting interpretations.
As of your unrelated claim that God doesn't change in the Bible, I would actually disagree. One, God constantly contradicts himself in the Bible and there are serious differences in the way the god character acts in the Old and New Testaments.
For instance, God's stance on human sacrifice seems to change:
Exodus 22:29Leviticus 18:21Examples of contradictions in the Bible are actually abundant. The ambiguity created by so many of them is actually one of the reasons that there can be so many radically different versions of Christianity as each sect picks and chooses different verses to follow and disregard based on different interpretations and external doctrines.
Our ego has lots of tricks to keep us active. So we must pay attention when we begin to say: I, I, I ... Our "I" slows down our lives. EVERY DAY WE MUST KILL OUR "I".