who are we?

the question of identity is a very deep philosophical one; however it ought to be an easy one. shouldn't it?

i mean it is the thing that we are most acquainted with. we are never without ourselves. never apart from.

but this theory is identity is not what i want to put down here now. rather i'd like to speak to the theory of non-identity. the person we think we are or could be. how do you believe that you would be given a certain situation.

to state to yourself...'i believe that i am "x"; because i would do "y" in this situation.'

this notion of non-identity is fiction. why? because you don't know. you don't know that you'd do 'x' in any given situation. until that happens you have no knowledge about it. to project yourself into an unknown future is impossible. experience is the mother of invention. action makes the man, so judge him by his deeds. two old adages that work in this situation. also, i'm bringing in that mysterious philosopher from the last post.

maybe these two ideas, of the self and the non-self, are not too distant. the buddha said that all things are impermanent. however philosophers like aquinas, and maimonides spoke of the existence of god in negative terms, and maybe that's what we need to do to speak of our identity? how does this work? this will be reserved for another wave...

[shalom...]