Defined By nothing. Affected by everything.

In my previous blog we looked at how we lose touch and we figured out some ideas but we really didn't get to any solid conclusions.

The paradox that we did stumble across was: How can we lose touch with something that we have previously defined ourselves by?

The focal point of this blog entry is going to be the idea of definition and our relationship to it. It seems pretty fucked that if we had once defined ourselves by something then how can we lose contact with it? Wouldn't we then no longer be ourselves?

Two Years Later...

Is the problem in definitions or is it in things and objects? Or is it just a fucked amalgam of both? For the sake of absurdity I vote "Fucked Amalgam". Which I could argue is the base for every issue in the world, but I certainly digress.

Definitions are at the root of the problem. Take the punk rock idea for example. When one defines oneself as punk rock does one become inherently "punk"? Or does the purchase and gathering of punk objects create the "punkness" one strives to be? The short circuit is the space between the two and where we begin to see simultaneously the issue and the solution [thank you Slavoj Zizek for the use of the term short circuit]



[Video from the movie Zizek! completely unrelated to what I am talking about but entertaining]

The short circuit being the object before the definition or the definition before the object? If the object/objects exist prior to the definition then it is very possible to lose touch with what/who you were defined by. This is achieved by simply not using or relating to the objects you previously used. I guess this is what happens when someone gets a makeover. It is not as if you become someone else, you just get new objects and an orientation to those objects by being made over. This arrangement is essentially how I see modern consumerism to work: objects first definition second, helped along by marketing.

If the second premise is enacted then the perspective of the system will change. The anchor of the second premise becomes a base-level definition of the individual unchanged by the object. If this anchor is set the use of objects and subsequent definition based on them is not possible or there is at least some sort of pretension that betrays the anchor. For example I can say: hello I am Paul and I like punk rock. I am Paul prior to and after the liking of punk rock. There is a raw me-ness that is unchangeable. However my experience of punk rock is subjective and changeable.

Obversely if I were to say: I like punk rock, I am Paul. This states that punk rock is objective prior to my essence as Paul. This version of the problem is what modern marketing wants us to think. This is the "what do you do?" question that people will ask you when you meet them. If one says "I am a financial analyst" then it can be assumed that you have the essence of one. When confronted with this question I want to say "what don't I do" however people don't seem to like being answered with a question. If you latch on to the essence of what you do or what you think of yourself as being then it is very easy to lose touch with what you have been. This essence of punk rock or financial analyst is what becomes you and if you're not careful destroys the anchor of who you are.

In conclusion it would seem that it is necessary to never be in touch and at the same time lose touch of everything. If you see me on the street and ask me what I do, I will reply with "what don't I do?" My goal of being myself is to become nothing.