The minimum of who we are

[Guest]

I've thought long and hard about this over the last 4 years and my first blush understanding in 2018 seems to have held relatively true in terms of its stability as a model.

 

We are a personality and perspective... not exactly.

 

In that personality I ascribe only the intangible flavor or core of a person, something that can be tested and seems to tint every interaction regardless of situation or environment. Its who you are when you're alone with yourself. In and of itself it has no capacity to interact with reality in that it requires the perspective as the translation to the current situational and environmental interaction. In this I'm saying if there is no required interaction or environment in which to interact, a perspective is entirely arbitrary, so what's left that's not arbitrary is the personality. Whatever that is. It cannot be observed directly.

 

Terms:

 

An environment may be anything in terms of a physical place or mindset including moods. It could sitting in church or in the back of a police car, with your parents or with that delinquent friend of yours. Behavioral norms may be wildly different in different environments.

 

A situation is what is relevant to your current interaction. You may be being arrested or reporting a crime. Note, in both cases the environment is defined by location and actors). You may be collaboratively writing a creative paper or taking an English test. In this example you are physically in the same seat of the same classroom at the same time of day but subjected to two entirely different situations.

 

Given that, I reckon that the expression of self is observed externally through the personality and perspective given the environment and situation which has a hierarchy as follows:

 

(These words are arbitrary)

 

Facet: this is what you see and experience of someone in one specific environment and situation. Given wildly different environments and situations, you may experience this individual as behaving wildly differently.

 

Roll (setting): a set of facets that identify you in a roll as an actor of a certain position, profession, identity, or as simply a unique individual. Note: This is the highest level an egregor or character can attain given they are archetypal and known only by their canon and not through direct interaction.

 

Avatar (a collection of facets or gem): your self expression in all environments and situations. From one perspective it is impossible to see the whole gem, therefore only through interacting with someone given a sufficient number of perspectives can you know them well enough to claim that you do. This would necessarily include observation in sufficiently many environments and situations.

 

How this applies to tulpamancy, headmates etc.:

 

A headmate is someone you know well with a necessarily different personality that may share a lot of commonality with you given you may share the same perspectives.

 

The question arises what is the minimum definition needed to claim the uniqueness and independence of a headmate?

 

Given you can change your perspective at will and they can therefore choose different perspectives from you, it is possible (without necessarily external stimuli) to know a headmate through interacting given the body is in different physical locations in different environments and situations. Their independent perspective would give a hint to their personality especially given you could take their perspective and see things differently. This hints at a unique core or personality.

 

You might say, but I know what they're thinking. Well yes, but actually no. You know what they're saying and you may know their intent and you possibly know their meaning but what they were thinking just before the communication is still opaque to the observer, even you. So in that way they're no different than any other external person given presumed interpretation and intent. The speed of reconciling this interpretation and intent is orders faster with a headmate so you will likely get a clearer interpretation and intent than an external person but experiencing them is still functionally the same.

 

So in my mind, to claim a headmate is unique and independent is the same process you would use for anyone else, the difference is anyone external is assumed to be independent and possibly unique prior to interaction and the opposite is potentially true with a headmate. The headmate may be but they would need to prove this over many interactions to eliminate all doubt. 

 

From this perspective, what they are at minimum is a series of interactions that hint at the core of their personality.

 

I would like to know why, how, and what that personality is, but from the nature of interaction, you can only observe it indirectly so you have to either assume it's there from the start or throw out interactions before you have convinced yourself it's there. Only through many interactions can you experience their true personality, their true avatar or gem.

 

Given this logic, it's still your choice to assume they're independent and unique from the start or not but that too is arbitrary because after sufficiently many interactions, the core will shine through.

 

In conclusion, I can only say that the minimum of what we are is this core, the essence of personality, that tints all interactions and can only be known from sufficiently many interactions from different perspectives in different environments and situations.

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Bear

[Glaurung26]

Some my might say that we are an event that happens to the world. There are things that cause us and things that we cause in turn. Even other events like ourselves.