I read a paragraph, and then another, and then another… and I reread how it all started. why do we need a definition of who we are, instead of focusing on more rich and descriptive definitions.
I do have issues with compartmentalization (compartmentalisation for those in UK, Australia and between), it goes with the blood. You see, we can take the pieces of a house, or a car, or a nation, or the moon, and we can define the pieces, and how they are related. We can take it appart and put it all together. It does not work with a living being. You can study pieces of a dog, a bacteria, or a human, but you can’t take the pieces appart and put them back together – without destroying the fundamental essence of that being.
To make it human, we can go into saying that my pieces don’t make me… there is no slash. I write, I eat, I love, I think, I invest, I create, I teach, I learn, I live… and because I live, I change…
and with change the being become blurred… How boring it is to be… life is more about becoming. This obsession with finding who we ‘are’ is limiting and constraining… it creates the full awareness of the present but then what? isn’t the present an ephemeral bridge between what we cannot change and what we forecast?
Then I think about the e-prime method, where we cannot use the verb ‘to be’ so instead of saying he is a writer, she is a scientist, we are forced to enrich our descriptions…. he writes novels, she discovers how muscles work, he dances, she calculates, he paints, she dreams, he cleans, she cook.
so next time someone asks me what do I do, I answer there is no slash, I am a complex individual focused on perpetual learning and enjoying life fully… all together past-present-future… unconstrained and complex. If you can’t put me in a box, good… I jump on boxes… I’m not a sum of the pieces someone chose to define… there is no slash. I’m whole.