This is really part three of a dialog on identity (Part one: Will the real Linshaolin please stand up; part two: GS’s response (relying heavily on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; and now part three — Linshaolin’s attempt at bridging particle physics and dinner parties). But before I begin, let me just set some ground rules: no disparaging comments about handbag acquisition will be tolerated, nor will unsupported statements be accepted as valid arguments. This is science after all.
Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg developed the Uncertainty Principle which postulates that one can never know both the velocity and the position of a particle in space because the effects of measuring one affects the other in an unpredictable manner. However, the unpredictability is on a subatomic scale (i.e., it is teensy tiny). Not that I would ever stoop to arguing from authority( fallacious argument), but Herr Heisenberg was a physicst not a psychiatrist and while his exhalted position lends support for his ideas in quantum mechanics, it does little to support the extension of those ideas into the realm of understanding personal identity. If, as the respected scholar GS asserts, Personality were to be altered each time it was interacted with (even a teensy tiny bit) then all humankind would suffer from dissociative fugue or at least would wear black socks with tennis shoes. Clearly this happens only in certain parts of Nevada and therefore puts a bit of a black eye on the UP as it applies to the Id.
But I have gotten way ahead of myself. I promised a discourse on uncertainty using the three archetypes. A quick refresher: an archetype is a cross-cultural foundation (as an example, the “mother-in-law” is an archetype found in every society and is immmediately recognizable) – primarily found in myth and literature these achetypes are a manifestation of the collective unconciousness. There are three types of archetype: Character, Symbol, and Situation.
GS poses the question: “Who is to say who the real Linshaolin is?” I respectfully answer: perhaps Linshaolin is the best person even if she chooses to do so through performance art. Almost all behavior is learned, and since everyone now has access to the Internet so no longer need learn anything at all, it is fair to say that we no longer need to have behavior well-incorporated into our Id in order to claim it to be our own — part of our own true self. I can read about art appreciation one half hour before the art reception, retain it for an hour, sound brilliant, bask in the sunshine of admiration, build up my already grandiose self-esteem and it is all me.
“Lin, you have not yet touched upon the three archetypes,” you say peevishly. Well, alrighty then. Let’s start with Character. Linshaolin is a character — that is, she has been crafted by her owner to have certain traits that are Public and a whole lot more behind the scenes. Even within the Public set of traits, some are reserved and only a subset of the world gets to witness them. Like all good characters, Linshaolin is flawed, skirts peril, faces doom, finds romance, sacrifices heroically, suffers hubris, has an achilles heel (ok, it is plantar fascitis but that is close enough), and lies at parties.
These characterisitics (note the root “ristics”) are in every shade and nuance of world literature and fine art — they define the Archetype called Character. There is no uncertainty here. They form the core of Identity thus making Linshaolin recognizable to everyone on the planet. But Character is but one of three Archetypes and all three are needed. It is the active selection of aspects of Character that allows for the integration of the second Archetype — Symbol. …to be continued in Part 2.
