Labels

I've been having an interesting conversation with an interesting person over the last few days, and one subject that jived exactly with a subject that's been obsessively running through my head is that of labels. It's funny how synchronized the universe is...it was the exact conversation I needed at this time.

I have long been saying that collective perspective makes up reality, and because reality is made up of collective perspectives, it can not, by nature, be objective. It's the asymptote. It can get really really infinitely close to objectivity, but by nature, it will never be 100% objective.

Same thing with people. There are infinite numbers of depths, planes, frequencies and facets of people, that it is really hard to come up with an exact detailed inventory of who a person is.

Take a pen for instance. Uncap it and put the cap at the end. You look at it from one angle, the cap, and it looks like a 2-dimensional circle. You look at it from the opposite angle, and it looks like a cone ending in a point. You look at it from the side view, and it is a long cylinder. Because we have the luxury of distance to view the whole and observe the boundaries of the object (where "All that Is the Pen" ends and "All that Is Not the Pen" begins), we are able to see what the object is despite its different appearances from different angles.

With people, we can't see the boundaries of the person. We have done a great job measuring the physical characteristics of people, but what about all that can not be measured--the psychological elements, the emotional elements, the psychic elements and the projected elements? And what about the fact that these elements are constantly shifting and morphing? Thus, in order to perceive a holistic person, we have to fill in a lot of the blanks.

I've always said that we don't really know anyone. Think about it. The person you will know best in your entire life is yourself. And how well would you say you know yourself? Let's say you know yourself pretty well, in this moment. How well will you know yourself in an hour? In a month? In 25 years? We're always changing. Nothing in the universe is static. Thus, we take those facts that we believe to be true, and based on the sum of these facts, fill in all the necessary assumptions to create the whole.

I've been through this theory already somewhere on this site, but I'll run through it briefly again. Say you meet someone. He tells you he's a kindergarten teacher, he reads to the elderly on weekends. He has a wife and three young kids. You spend some time with him and you observe that he has a very gentle, kind manner of speaking, is friendly, and appears to be sincere making you trust the information that he himself has provided.

In truth, this is what you know:
-he's a kindergarten teacher
-he does charity work
-he is gentle and kind
-he appears trustworthy

That's all you know. But in order to interact with this person, we will fill in the blanks and assume that this man in his entirity, is the archetype of a good person.

Let's say, you run into him next week. His behavior and manner are the same, but this time, he confesses that he was in jail for 5 years doing time for rape.

His manner has not changed. His presentation remains consistent. But now you must assimilate this new data in with the old data, and reconstruct your idea of this person. Usually, if the new data is fairly consistent (which it usually is...the more data that is compiled, the more likely new data is consistent enough to be assimilated), the idea of the person is stable. If the data is inconsistent, this causes problems in trusting who this person is, because the old assumptions are contradicted by the new data. This is the phenomenon behind why we freak out and feel like we "don't know someone anymore" when we find out new information about him or her that we can't fit into the projected image that we felt had been accurate.

The only way we can function socially with others is by filling in the blanks to build our idea of the people we interact with based on the facts and observations we receive. But I believe there is great danger in putting too much weight onto projections and assumptions, and not being very aware that new data will come in and will need to be assimilated.

So in essence, I think it's very important, when dealing with people, that you listen carefully and keep an open mind. Be careful of not running away and being dogmatic with YOUR IDEA of a person, but try to keep an open channel for learning about this person, so that your idea of who this person is is updated with all the new information you receive.

Which brings me to the idea of labels. Labels are necessary. They're necessary for personal identification and for identification of others. It's the wholesale process of the aforementioned assumption process. But to cling to labels is dangerous.

I'll use myself as an example. I am female. To see me as female shows me classified as a gender, different from male, with all the personality, physical assumptions that come with the classification of being female. The me in my entirity, has been dissected to show the parts of me that fall into this classification. I am approximately 26 years old. That puts me in the 20s age range, coming with more personality, physical assumptions. Tomorrow I will be approximately 26 years old + 1 day. I am American. Again, different but more assumptions. Perhaps I will not be American at a later date. I am a Gemini (personality assumptions). I am kind-hearted. Perhaps I will not be kind-hearted tomorrow. I am heterosexual. Perhaps I will not be heterosexual tomorrow. I am generally benevolent. Perhaps I will not be generally benevolent tomorrow. Etc.

It is impossible to define a person based on characteristics, labels, etc. because not only can you not itemize all of them to determine the sum which would define the person, but because those characteristics are either constantly changing, or vulnerable to change.

(note: The sum of the parts of anything do not "equal" the whole. The sum of the parts, through logical coincidence, "correspond" to the whole--produce a parallel entity that happens to equal the whole. A whole is a facsmile of the sum of the parts, but it IS NOT the product-entity of sum of the parts.)

So all that semantical mumbo jumbo is me trying to say that labels will suffice to get us through the day, but it's so so so important to always approach people (and yourself) with fresh senses as new information comes in constantly that require for you to adjust your idea of the person so that you are aware of and can stay (as close as humanly possible) in touch with who this person truly is.

Otherwise, you're really just shadowboxing with imaginary friends that you created in your head.