I am a ...
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 :)
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.
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
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.