That stuff I said I was going to write about yesterday
I now present to a piece on the nature of reality and perception and it relevance to identity and other possibly important questions.
It started with a consideration of transsexual and furry identity. Now, I'm not part of either group; I'll tell you that I'm a female human. But I feel like I have some understanding of why or how someone might see it differently.
I base how I identify myself on fairly simple definitions. I am female because I have the female parts and hormones. I am human because of my genes and the biochemical bath I was in before being born. These are straight forward, factual, objective ways of thinking about it. They aren't the way everyone things about it, or the way people think about it most of the time. If you ask somewhat, what it means to be human you have a good chance of getting a response about souls, or consciousness, or some struggle for purpose, rather than one about genes and biology. These more metaphoric definitions for humanity seem real as well, to me, as the simple definition I use for myself. But they are much more subjective, and there are many more of them.
For clarity, when I say objective definition I mean one that is consistent with observed facts and near universal consensus. Yes, one can argue that there is no such thing as "fact" (I think I have) but essentially, I think you know what I mean by objective, here.
Also, as a side note, our perception of objective reality are limited: filtered by our sensors and distilled by our cognitive abilities. Reality often has continua where we expect disjoint sets, or discreet items when we might expect continua. Even objective definitions tend to go a little fuzzy around the edges. The one I use for human doesn't return a clear answer if asked when exactly in the growth process a collection of cells becomes human for instance.
Returning to my original line of thought now. Inevitably, the subjective definitions and the objective ones don't always line up. Hence the question arises: which is more important, the objective reality or the person's or people's viewpoint. Choosing an alternative identity, is focus on the subject reality. I can empathize with either choice. For myself, I, in my typical balance-seeking way, would claim neither is inherently more important, that both need to be considered. Objective reality will give you a good sense of the physical world, but to navigate amongst people without recognizing the power their ideas have on them and indirectly on you is impractical.
This whole objective reality/subjective understanding thing applies to more than just identity. Take God for instance: I know of no objective definition that fits with observed facts. It is equally clear though, that many subjective understandings of God exist in the minds of people, and that these understandings effect how the people act. I would claim God isn't harmed any by His/Her subjective nature, but I suspect many disagree with me on that point.
In conclusion, it seems to be that whether you lean toward objective definitions or subjective ones, if you try to claim that you subjective viewpoint is, in fact, an objective reality (that other people don't see for one reason or another), you are likely to make people very mad at you.
And now I sit back and see if I have any ability to predict controversy.
It started with a consideration of transsexual and furry identity. Now, I'm not part of either group; I'll tell you that I'm a female human. But I feel like I have some understanding of why or how someone might see it differently.
I base how I identify myself on fairly simple definitions. I am female because I have the female parts and hormones. I am human because of my genes and the biochemical bath I was in before being born. These are straight forward, factual, objective ways of thinking about it. They aren't the way everyone things about it, or the way people think about it most of the time. If you ask somewhat, what it means to be human you have a good chance of getting a response about souls, or consciousness, or some struggle for purpose, rather than one about genes and biology. These more metaphoric definitions for humanity seem real as well, to me, as the simple definition I use for myself. But they are much more subjective, and there are many more of them.
For clarity, when I say objective definition I mean one that is consistent with observed facts and near universal consensus. Yes, one can argue that there is no such thing as "fact" (I think I have) but essentially, I think you know what I mean by objective, here.
Also, as a side note, our perception of objective reality are limited: filtered by our sensors and distilled by our cognitive abilities. Reality often has continua where we expect disjoint sets, or discreet items when we might expect continua. Even objective definitions tend to go a little fuzzy around the edges. The one I use for human doesn't return a clear answer if asked when exactly in the growth process a collection of cells becomes human for instance.
Returning to my original line of thought now. Inevitably, the subjective definitions and the objective ones don't always line up. Hence the question arises: which is more important, the objective reality or the person's or people's viewpoint. Choosing an alternative identity, is focus on the subject reality. I can empathize with either choice. For myself, I, in my typical balance-seeking way, would claim neither is inherently more important, that both need to be considered. Objective reality will give you a good sense of the physical world, but to navigate amongst people without recognizing the power their ideas have on them and indirectly on you is impractical.
This whole objective reality/subjective understanding thing applies to more than just identity. Take God for instance: I know of no objective definition that fits with observed facts. It is equally clear though, that many subjective understandings of God exist in the minds of people, and that these understandings effect how the people act. I would claim God isn't harmed any by His/Her subjective nature, but I suspect many disagree with me on that point.
In conclusion, it seems to be that whether you lean toward objective definitions or subjective ones, if you try to claim that you subjective viewpoint is, in fact, an objective reality (that other people don't see for one reason or another), you are likely to make people very mad at you.
And now I sit back and see if I have any ability to predict controversy.