Today, we see a crippling psychosis — a blinding preoccupation with the mass delusion of 'Ego-Constructs' — otherwise known as "identities". Identities are a result of culturally sanctioned linguistic constructs — a culmination of socially conditioned, culturally reinforced attachments to illusory perceptions of oneself. The process of constructing one's identity becomes something that the mind clings to in a desperate bid to rationalize a false sense of self-reassurance — festering from a psychological implant of manufactured insecurity. Identity is perceived to be real due to the illusion of solidity. The notion that we are a form of physicality is an illusion, as documented and corroborated by numerous scientific disciplines associated to quantum physics. Identities are labels, reinforced by how we assume we are "supposed" to be seen by others and ourselves. An identity, really, is simply what we preconceive ourselves to be, due in most part, to environmental conditioning. It could be hypothesized that identity emerged out of the evolution of cognition itself. If this is indeed the truth, then it is proving to be a paradoxical nuance that is having detrimental consequences with respect to the welfare of the human experiment.
In the context of the universe, what purpose does the attachment to identities serve? In the context of quantum cosmological oneness, how do we re-frame and re-structure our perceptions of ourselves, as a collective, without submitting to conceptualized instruments of separation? In the context of sanity, how can a so-called sentient organism go through an entire lifetime never questioning the transient thoughts that shape and define it — not to mention ever questioning the mechanisms that causally generate the very essence of thought itself? At what point do all identities simply dissolve, as all things do...?
Gender, skin color, country, clothing, trinkets, symbols, economic status, political affiliations, religious fervor and so on — are all typical drivers of boundary-enforcing identities. Contrary to popularized dogma, what we think we are is not what we are. What we think we are consists of culturally programmed perceptions established for us by the dominant paradigm in which we're groomed.
Language is a technology, no different to a computer or a cell phone. It is an instrument of synergistic communication. Language, like culture, is an unseen, catalyzing operating-system for unconsciously molding and defining identity. The use of language is the method by which the parameters of the consensus social order are engineered. In other words, to create an identity is to create a reality tunnel in which a sentient organism creates an unconscious commitment to a prism of rigid values — containing within the invisible constraints of what is perceived to be accepted or rejected. Identity, in many ways, is a form of unconscious entrapment. And, the stronger the commitment to identity, the stronger the allegiance to a machine urging for conflict and separation within both oneself and the whole self. All humanized languages today (without exception) are identity-creating machines. And fueling ego-based separation is one of the primary functions and tenets of civilizational/hierarchical society, to which the vast majority of the human population conform without ever knowing it.
Does reality define identity, or identity define reality... or both?
Does a name or a label determine one's identity, or are names and labels nothing other than points of reference? When did the human mind decide to qualify names and labels as being something more than a referential point? These are some of many questions that would almost never enter a culturally indoctrinated mind, not just because of the implications of such in the attempt of answering them, but because such questions transcend the limitations imposed by an enculturated mind. I argue that identity is the concoction of meaning from which there is none. For, ego cannot survive without meaning. Ego cannot survive without the persistent sustenance of the illusion of identity-based permanence. In other words, how we choose to use language has an inextricable influence on how realities, hence our identities, are manifested.
So, we construct narratives. And these narratives that we repeat to ourselves incessantly throughout our lives don't merely dictate how we think — they actually become who we think we are. We then become captive to and entangled by these narratives. And out of these narratives comes the illusory perception of dichotomies, which gives even further credence to identity constructs — black and white, war and peace, rich and poor, love and hate, success and failure, and so on. All dichotomies are self-referential distinctions reinforcing the idea that if one exists, so must its opposite. The inferred meanings of these distinctions lead people to understand the meanings of said distinctions strictly within the confines of the culturally accepted awareness of what the meanings of labels, names and dichotomies etc are "supposed" to denote.
Is it possible to recreate language, thereby reconstruct identity?
Is it possible to overhaul the entire notion of identity itself, thereby reconstruct our very relationship with language itself? Identity fetish is an interesting and ominous phenomenon, and quite likely to be inescapable. Perhaps original sin is deeply rooted in the blind dedication of pledging allegiance to false perceptions of ourselves.
If these are, in fact, the final days of humankind wherein there is still time to return to some semblance of balance before we catapult ourselves towards oblivion, then a new ethos is being called into existence — An ethos based on 'no-identity' if you will — invariably leading to a state of consciousness rooted in 'egolessness'. It certainly has not been trialed yet. I argue that the missing piece of the evolutionary equation is to eviscerate the idea entirely that we are even human to begin with.
Could the notion of 'We' denote something that none of our current languages can describe? Could the identity junkies of a dying paradigm even recognize such a proposition?