Hide background
READ THIS!

Welcome to the Otherkinphenomena forum.

You really have to follow these instructions! Instructions will update as you progress.

If you wish to post on, or access most of the content of our forum and our community, please click here to register first, then follow the instructions below. If you have already registered, please log in, in the above "Hello There, Guest!" box.

Thanks for understanding and see you around.



Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
Chordal
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 452
Points: 2662.00
Contribution: tick tick tick 

Post: #1
Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
I almost posted this to a different website, but then I realized that people would be more free to respond, here.

As time goes on and I discover more about myself, the easier it becomes to believe in some kind of personal essence. There are at least two schools of thought that I've been dealing with around this: Buddhism (particularly Flower Garland Buddhism, which is Mahayana) and Hinduism (I'm unsure of what form). I haven't had as much time available as I would have liked to study this (I'm busy studying other things). But it's basically a given in Hinduism that there is a core self. And it's a given in Buddhism that there is no such thing as a core self, in lay terms of "self".

There is one point of potential agreement, however. "I am the way I am innately (at a soul-level)" as versus "I am the way I am because external causes and conditions caused me to be the way I am," both contain the phrase, "I am the way I am." Neither school seems to challenge the evidential -- or phenomenal -- self. The only real difference here seems to be the outlook -- as to whether one can look forward to stably staying the way s/he is, or whether one's self will inevitably change.

I've reached the point in my evolution where I can look back on my past and see that I did not have a "normal" childhood, or teen years, or young adult years. I am not faced with a choice between being "normal" and being "transgendered." I am now, and have always been (in this life, at least) living a transgender experience. I do not feel I can look forward to ever being "normal," given that I have never been normal and that regardless of what I look like, and how others respond to me, I will remain the person I am. And that person I am is -- holistically speaking -- third-gendered, though for reasons of social communication, I attempt to explain it in terms of "man" and "woman".

So looking beyond this one life, I wonder if at a soul-level, I actually am third-gendered, and not a man or a woman; or if this is just something which is very much a part of me in this life, due to biology. That is, have I discovered my "true self"? Or have I just gotten to one of the cores of my phenomenal self? *Did* I choose this incarnation, and am I the way I am because I knew that I'd be able to find myself again, here? Or was incarnating here and being subject to these circumstances, just an accident?

I realize I'm leaving the question of the validity of the doctrine of rebirth, unaddressed, as it's fundamentally taken as true in both these traditions -- however I can see the possibility of rebirth not actually existing except as a speculation by those who are now, and have been, living.

I also realize that I'm not addressing the issue of my history as regards my tendency to plurality, or sensitivity -- though this is very much a line of concern that I can see would occur to my "other half" as he combines his philosophical inclinations with my ignorance. <!-- s:?: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif" alt=":?:" title="Question" /><!-- s:?: -->

Do you believe in the existence of a fundamental self? Yes? No? Unsure? What is your reasoning?
2012-09-07 0:08
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Seraphyna
Member is Offline
Administrator
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 1,891
Points: 9840.00
Contribution: tick tick tick tick tick tick tick 

Post: #2
Re: Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
Honestly, as much as I used to believe in the concept of souls and a 'core self,' as time goes on I believe in it less and less. I have no reason to believe a 'core self' exists in a spiritual manner. I haven't experienced this myself and it cannot be in any way proven. That being said, we are born with our DNA...so in a way our genetics is our 'core self'. We have encoded predispositions for gender identity, sexuality, certain behavioral things, mental things, etc. We are then shaped by our lives, our experiences, the people and the world around us and are thus molded into who we grow up to be. What there *is* good, solid, empirical, evidence for is genetics. What there is good, experimental, evidence for is certain predispositions of the brain.

I honestly believe that everything about 'spiritual' experiences can be explained through neurological and psychological means. I also believe in the principle that the brain is wired in such a way where a person will form a belief and then find things to back that belief up...even going so far as to misinterpret things to fit the belief. This principle can be seen in all things, not just spiritual matters. I suppose the bottom line for me is that I can prove my brain exists, I can see concrete evidence for genetics, neurology, even psychology. There is no evidence for the soul...and no burden to prove a negative.

I can easily look back on my life from birth until now and explain why I have the identity I do in psychological and neurological terms. A spiritual explanation seems like a stretch.

[Image: seraphyna11_zps47e1e313.png]
"All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost."-Tolkien
"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream."-Poe
2012-09-07 0:39
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Chordal
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 452
Points: 2662.00
Contribution: tick tick tick 

Post: #3
Re: Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
Hi Sera,

Hope you'll forgive me quoting only what I'm responding to...

Seraphyna Wrote:That being said, we are born with our DNA...so in a way our genetics is our 'core self'. We have encoded predispositions for gender identity, sexuality, certain behavioral things, mental things, etc. We are then shaped by our lives, our experiences, the people and the world around us and are thus molded into who we grow up to be.
I'm not entirely convinced of the extent to which a person can be "molded"...in my experience, there is a large amount of the person themselves that will not be confined to what others say s/he should be. This is the stuff we fall back on when the world seems to fall away around us. For you, it seems to be different than for me -- at least given the places we're each at, currently.

I do have some idea of what happened which might have led to my gender identity being what it is; that is, a burst of adrenaline from my mother, during a certain developmental window in-utero. This doesn't have to do with DNA -- it has to do with environment. Last I checked (a number of years ago) there was a bit of evidence that was piling up along with the lack of a recognized genetic basis for homosexuality...what I'm specifically thinking of are gender-identity-specific correlations between the sizes of a part of the brain (BST-complex) in transsexual women as versus heterosexual women as versus (I assume, nontrans, straight and gay) men. That is, transsexual women's BST-complex sizes were correlated more closely to those of heterosexual women as versus nontrans men, and it didn't matter how long they had been on estrogen, if at all. Last I checked, though, there had only been two FtM brains examined.

It would seem that this would explain some part of gender identity, but the fact remains that there's a lot of diversity even within transgender populations. I think that part of this has to do with individual variations in, likely, a number of factors -- thus explaining why some transmen, for example, really have a disconnect with being initially female-bodied, and why some people, like myself, don't have that strong disconnect with the body (granted, I do call it *the* body) but do have a strong dislike of being consistently misgendered -- which implies that there's some sort of gendered position in there that's being violated. Nevertheless, that does support your position, here:

Seraphyna Wrote:What there is good, experimental, evidence for is certain predispositions of the brain.
And yes, it does make sense that in lack of understanding, people will believe in certain things like magic. What concerns me a bit is the reliance upon science as though certain hypotheses (like the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) *were* basically a substitute for magic, of which I've seen a fair bit -- though that's kind of off-topic. The thing about religion, when it's being used in best form, is that there are certain techniques (like relaxation/meditation, hatha yoga, etc.) which actually do lead to a solid benefit in a person's quality of life -- so even if the explanations around why they work are wrong, the fact remains that they're beneficial for a lot of people. Which doesn't contradict this:

Seraphyna Wrote:I honestly believe that everything about 'spiritual' experiences can be explained through neurological and psychological means.
I do believe that a number of years ago, Diane Vera would quote studies on samadhi (the meditative experience of "enlightenment") as being correlated with certain brain-states, which evidence was then used to imply that because a brain state could be linked to samadhi, this meant that samadhi was therefore not spiritual in nature. But it doesn't make sense to say that because a brain state is associated with a certain experience, that the significance of the experience can therefore be reduced to that brain state. I would think, given my experience with mental illness and psychiatric medication, that anything which is directly (hell, maybe even indirectly) perceived by the mind would have an accompanying neurological state, or else it wouldn't be perceived, right?

We perceive the world through our neurology. That doesn't mean that because we touch a hot kettle and it burns, this means that our experience of touching a hot kettle and it burning is ultimately reducible to just the neurological feedback of pressure and pain, and thus it doesn't matter if we continue to touch it or not. Maybe there is actually a hot kettle there.

So, just because spiritual experiences (and I do agree that "spiritual" may not be the right term when talking about "spiritual" things that don't necessarily validate the concept of "spirit") can be explained via neurological and psychological -- or psychiatric -- means, that doesn't necessarily mean that this is the entire picture of what's going on. I'm not convinced of the concept that the world itself is reducible to mind-only. But maybe there's some other aspect to what you're saying that I'm not getting?

My experience is that I've had a lot of messages come at me as to who I should be, who I am, how those don't match. I've experienced this life through this body, and this body has shaped how people have responded to me. My responses to those responses have in large part shaped my self-concept, however, I would not go so far as to say that I've been "molded" by them. I grew up in an Asian-American family, so my identity is Asian-American, even though I don't look as though this would be the case. Nevertheless, I'm finding that I'm sensitive to the needs of families which are like mine, who have been transplanted from cultures like the one which has been passed down to me, into a new one. Both those cultures hybridize and create Asian-American cultural identity. This doesn't mean that I had -- or have -- no choice in the matter. My grandmother did not make me who I am -- I have had as much say in it as anyone else.

But what I'm trying to get at is not, specifically, that. What I'm trying to get at is the basic condition of my sense of myself, before all of these modifiers (female, third-gender, Asian-American, mixed-race, pansexual, synthete, etc.) are thrown in, which I operate from when I have to *define* those modifiers for myself and for my community. It's usually silent, and it's usually invisible: either because I am so engrossed in the outside world that I'm unaware of its action; or because I'm so withdrawn from everything I normally interact with, that it has nothing against which to define itself. It only has definition in relation to others.

Seraphyna Wrote:There is no evidence for the soul...and no burden to prove a negative.
That means there is no evidence to convince me that you're right, then, I'm guessing?

Seraphyna Wrote:A spiritual explanation seems like a stretch.
Indeed, when you look at the plethora of spiritual explanations that people have come up with across time, which cannot all be perfectly true. But it would likely be wise not to mistake the finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself...
2012-09-07 5:18
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Elinox
Member is Offline
Professional Pirate
Kintype: Lupine & Feline
Otherkin: Yes
Gender: chaotic good
Reputation: 2
Posts: 2,453
Points: 10251.00
Contribution: tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick 

.
Post: #4
Re: Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
Personally, I do believe in souls. How or what exactly a soul is is obviously up for debate as they have yet to be proven to actually exist. However, I believe there is something innate in every living thing that makes up who you are as an individual: your likes/dislikes, your core personality traits, your personal morals, etc. That is your personal essence, the core part of you, your soul.

Why I believe this is probably because as a child, I was told things like humans and non-human animals went to heaven when they died. Hard to go to heaven physically, hence the 'soul' concept. However, as I've gotten older and more experienced, I've noticed subtle differences in everyone I've ever met. Something that sets them apart from everyone else. That something, that spark of individuality, I would classify as part of their soul.

Also, it sounds like part of your intent here is to discuss Nature versus Nurture. I personally believe that a child is a product of both in their upbringing. Some things folks just know (nature) and then they learn other things (nurture) as they grow up.

[Image: sGaXcqG.png]
Banner by me. If you want one too, see here.

"You're the best kind of crazy." -Murphy, The Dresden Files
2012-09-07 14:12
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Chordal
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 452
Points: 2662.00
Contribution: tick tick tick 

Post: #5
Re: Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
Elinox Wrote:Personally, I do believe in souls. How or what exactly a soul is is obviously up for debate as they have yet to be proven to actually exist. However, I believe there is something innate in every living thing that makes up who you are as an individual: your likes/dislikes, your core personality traits, your personal morals, etc. That is your personal essence, the core part of you, your soul.
I may be getting out of my depth here (it would help if I studied rather than talking)...there seems to have been some debate as to whether unexplained personal characteristics were an attribute of a personal essence (atman, as a portion of brahman), or as to whether they were the results of past actions, i.e. the effects of karma.

The thing is that I'm not entirely certain I believe in karma, as I've seen the concept of "karma" expounded -- granted there are at least two different versions that I know of: a Hindu one where a Deity rewards or punishes actions; and a Buddhist one where karma is simply a cosmic equalizer without an actor. In addition, Hindu karma seems to specifically deal with fulfilling (or not fulfilling) one's cultural obligations by birth (caste), while Buddhist karma seems to deal with one's cultivated internal state and one's actions in life.

Trying to get away from the reward/punishment (or alternately, merit/sin) aspects of karma, I had attempted in the past to redefine it for myself as simply action/reaction, without value or judgment attached to either action or reaction. But I'm not certain that this explanation is actually an explanation of karma -- though it may very well describe how I got to this point.

Elinox Wrote:Why I believe this is probably because as a child, I was told things like humans and non-human animals went to heaven when they died. Hard to go to heaven physically, hence the 'soul' concept.
I'm going to try and skip the obvious stupid joke I could make here; though interestingly there seems to be some sort of belief in Daoism that Daoist masters (particularly Immortals) could fly away when no one was looking. I'm not sure if it's a synonym for running away or dying or "disappearing" (in the manner of "los desaparecidos") or what; I'm fairly certain that no one actually flew off like a bird.

Elinox Wrote:However, as I've gotten older and more experienced, I've noticed subtle differences in everyone I've ever met. Something that sets them apart from everyone else. That something, that spark of individuality, I would classify as part of their soul.
I can see this.

Elinox Wrote:Also, it sounds like part of your intent here is to discuss Nature versus Nurture. I personally believe that a child is a product of both in their upbringing. Some things folks just know (nature) and then they learn other things (nurture) as they grow up.
I'm not certain if it's a nature/nurture problem, unless you're counting past-life impressions or, alternately, the nature of one's spirit or soul as "nature." Past-life impressions, if we'd be keeping to the framework of Buddhism, might actually count more as "nurture" than "nature," yet granted, almost everything -- except "Buddha-nature", or alternately, the unconditioned state which Buddhists want to return to (if I've got that right) -- counts as "nurture" in Buddhism. Basically the idea is that we've got a cascade-effect of prior causes and conditions creating later conditions and giving rise to later causes, ad-infinitum (although some people talk about nirvana, I don't have faith that nirvana as a primal unconditioned state is accessible [while living, at least], nor do I know if it's desirable -- or even, really, what that would look like).

Part of what I'm talking about, which I only realized last night, is the question of whether what I'm experiencing now as my phenomenal self can be counted on to continue, or whether it will change like everything else. This is a question of whether I now know myself to at least one core -- that of gender identity -- or whether this will remain in flux even after I've gained the knowledge of who I feel myself to be, now.

I was writing my coming-out letter to my managers earlier today -- I couldn't concentrate with it not being done. When I was writing, I realized that the overall picture that I was painting of myself looked very much as though I was a genderqueer butch (not "butch woman", as I don't identify as any kind of woman; but "butch" as a noun like "man" or "woman"), except for the points that I have (and do not deny) the capacity to love queer men (I largely avoid the straight ones because they don't know how to respect me inclusive of my masculinity -- it tends to make them feel a little gay), and that I haven't as of yet taken up a male social role. Which...kind of puts me in a, well, queer, category? (My last gender therapist called me a "baby butch.")

Probably the happiest time in my life, which I keep referring back to, was when I was living away from my parents and took up the role of...I'm not sure I can say it online. A genderqueer bisexual person who took on some of the more aggressive/militant ways of lesbian community -- you probably know what I'm referring to, it starts with "d." Leather jackets and jeans, yeah? I can't remember it really being too hard, even though I got the requisite swastikas on my door and bull like that...but I had also gained 1/5 of my prior weight in muscle, I had strong connections in the queer community (the GLBT community center was downstairs from my dorm), and I had been training in aikido and taekwondo, so I can't really see myself as being too concerned. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

What was awesome that I really miss now? Being avoided by straight men who would otherwise hit on me and expect me to give them my name and phone number, because they think I want them. At least I was sending some signals then that said, "NOOOO. not for you." I also, though, didn't realize how deeply embedded the culture of picking up girls was to this society, and had no idea how one of my (female) friends was continually in relationships -- 'cause no one was hitting on me, and I wasn't hitting on anyone else, either. WELL, NOW I know. I also really miss being able to be perceived as queer (i.e. safe), to women who might think I'm cute, and show signals to that extent -- it would help me learn the flirting skills that I wasn't given the opportunity to develop, in high school.

The bodily state that I can see myself getting back to is the one I had in early college -- basically, fairly well-muscled for my frame (seriously, I looked like a quarterback and may not have been able to lower my arms all the way or easily touch my own shoulder -- I can't precisely recall), *without* the medical intervention of testosterone. I might opt for FtM chest reconstruction somewhere down the line, so I don't have to deal with the problem of my chest anymore (it's just really annoying to have to continue to deal with, and it reminds me that I'm female and that people think femininity needs to be controlled [i.e. bras], which is not something I need to be reminded of every freakin' day).

So, I mean, I am more masculine than the majority of butches I've run across and have known -- the others being people who have now transitioned to male, who I know are way more masculine than myself. I am not convinced that I'd be happy in a male form -- particularly in *this body* as male; and especially, *aging* in that form. At the same time, I can't see myself as any type of woman ("female" is different to me than "woman"), and I'm primarily (though not exclusively) attracted to women. So it's like -- maybe this is the reality of people who've come before me? You know, being in between or outside of the categories of "man" and "woman" at the same time as one is predominantly homosexual (when the body is considered) or heterosexual (when the mind is considered). This type of identity actually has roots going back to at least the 19th century, if memory serves -- I'm pretty sure it's addressed in _Female Masculinity_ by Judith ("Jack") Halberstam.

But even while I'm writing this, I'm getting a little bit of a feeling that it's somehow a bit inaccurate. It's that type of self-knowledge that lets me know where I'm being entirely honest and am entirely correct as regards my present state. But it's like, where does that come from, you know? It's only these little nudges that let me know where I'm being a bit overzealous and a bit unintentionally dishonest (in the interest of being able to speak at all).

I need to get to bed -- early morning, tomorrow. Anyhow. The problem for me is whether, should I be able to get to a core of myself as I have in the case of defining myself as third-gendered...and just really really similar to a female-assigned butch pansexual (haha)...is this core going to change? Or does it have some permanence, and we only change our labels for it as better labels and cultural contexts become available?

To bed, to bed. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

EDIT: This post was brought to you by Blaze. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
2012-09-08 6:22
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
SoullessSingularity
Member is Offline
New
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 9
Points: 95.00
Contribution:

Post: #6
Re: Do you believe souls exist? Why or why not?
I don't know about others and their belief in what a soul is or whatnot. While it is true that we are discovering every day bits of evidence, pieces of the puzzle, of the infinite things of what could affect our 'self' and why. However, as I said, these small factors are basically infinite... I doubt science could figure out them all, only cut out ones that it doesn't understand. Spiritually, what us a 'self' can be incredibly varied, for now not only are there explainable factors (parents, childhood, past experiences, etc) as to how we become our 'self', but the inexplicable and unverifiable step in as factors as well (God, guardian spirits, totem animals, etc). This essentially makes our 'self' infinity squared, as assuming that spiritualism plays its own part into a person's personality. Likely, the map of all these things that affect a person is almost impossible to list, even for a single person, much less all of humanity. I suppose in simple terms, to try and nuzzle into the mysteries of the infinite factors that play into a person's 'nature' concept, it would in the end be as nebulous and as mystifying as the argument of a soul as a spiritual item that makes up the blueprints of a single human.

However, while that may dismantle the ideal of a soul as the blueprints of a person, what if we seeked the Tabula Rasa, or the "blank slate" soul?

To me, that is what the 'soul' may be. It is not a person. It is the 'idea' of humanity, it is the abstract dreams of a concept of a personality. There is no core, there is only the idea of what a 'core' is, like a forum. It is a coloring book, for there are things that all humans have. Emotions- what kind? Color in their emotional spectrum. Likes- what kind? And the environment colors that in too, with their own infinite factors of an infinite colors of paint. So, while the 'soul' exists, it does not exist as a person, instead it exists as an 'idea' of a person, the silhouette of a personality, of which the environment closely shades with the colors of life. That, to me, is what a soul is. A soul is a seed. It is an idea. It is the potential of a human- a being with awareness and personality and wisdom and stupidity and ignorance and wonder, just as we wonder. And somehow, to me, that which is a silhouette of life is beautiful...

(Apologies for the possibly incoherent ranting, I hope I made at least some kind of sense. I just got back from a 7 hour work shift and it's 4 am.)

What we see is a bad reflection
What we seek has already passed us by
What we feel is only misplaced romance
And all that we know is a lie
2012-09-08 7:48
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Chordal
Member is Offline
Eager beaver
Kintype:
Otherkin:
Gender:
Reputation: 0
Posts: 452
Points: 2662.00
Contribution: tick tick tick 

Post: #7
Realization of a phenomenal self
(This post was initially going to be a separate thread, but then I looked back into this thread and realized I was talking about the same thing. Apologies to SoullessSingularity for not addressing the above post...)

Heeey.

I just got a free moment here and was thinking about Archer's response to my Daoism thread. Having that come up again got me back to thinking on Daoism and Buddhism -- which I haven't been doing so much of, while being in classes. What did arise in my mind in relation to this is the interrelationship between the two streams of thought. I ran across a book a while back ...it was titled something like _Daoism and Buddhism: Face to Face_, which went over how the two religions were competing for followers and "borrowed" or stole each others' concepts (I suppose, depending upon your perspective). I didn't get the book at the time because I was already buying $40 worth of books, but the salient point on this, to me, is the concept of the self.

I've gotten to the point in my life where I actually am getting to a sense of myself -- something underneath everything that doesn't change. When I was younger and I didn't know as much about myself -- only that there were things happening to me that I didn't like -- the theory that I read of in Buddhism, of there being no essential self (anatta), resonated more strongly with me. This is because I could not find a constant self underneath everything else, and was more apt to believe that there were no constants, as this meant that my pain was also not a constant.

However, I have had some time to withdraw from this line of thought, and I've had some time to read of competing worldviews, and also of a book which is relatively unbiased in its philosophical treatment of (among other lines) Buddhism (both South Asian and East Asian versions), Daoism, and Hinduism. For me, Buddhism tends closer to a...I'm not sure "nihilist" is the correct term, but it seems to tend closer to a nihilist viewpoint -- from what little I know of nihilism. This is particularly so when we get into the philosophy of that one school led by Nagarjuna which did not develop a philosophy of its own save that all philosophies of the time were wrong, and when we're arguing that there is no inherent innate self that is constant.

I've had some time to look into competing philosophies, and what I've read is that when Hinduism speaks of the "self" (atman) and when Buddhism speaks of the "self" -- or lack of one (anatta/anatman) -- they aren't talking about the same "atman". Moreover, when South Asian Buddhism spoke of "emptiness" (shunyata) and Chinese Buddhism spoke of the same (can't remember the term), and then this was translated out into Daoism's version of "the undifferentiated" (in English, "Void"), they weren't talking about the same things, and they aren't talking about the same things. So this has helped me get a better handle on the limitations and mistranslations that lead people in the English-speaking U.S. to use the misleading term "no-soul" (like they use the misleading term, "emptiness"), and pass it off like it means what it looks like it means, which it doesn't. ("Emptiness" means "empty of inherent self-existence," not "nonbeing.")

From what I can tell, *anatta* refers to the idea that the being one is at any particular time is because of other causes and conditions, and so is subject to change like everything else. It does *not* mean that there is no being that one is at all: only, that the being that one is arises interdependently with other phenomena and depends upon those other phenomena for existence and form. This concept is extremely distant, and perhaps beyond the point of utility, from the perspective of someone who is just trying to find out who they are now, situated in a particular place and time, with a certain biology and with a certain metaphysical history.

What I'm finding is that the more I assert my own being, the clearer my own identity becomes; and the clearer it is that perhaps I didn't have a self-concept (and then later, a *stable* self-concept), because I was not being recognized by others to be the person I was; and because so much of my energy was put into defense and playing roles for other people, that I didn't have the luxury of finding out who I was. At this point I've reached the place of having come out as transgender and/or genderqueer to a lot of people, with more coming-out scheduled down the line. This has brought up some fears, to the point that I've realized that the reason I have not yet transitioned, is that it's uncomfortable for me to consider the social repercussions of transition, or of visibly being not-female, even though this is who I am.

At this point I know that I have the fears, I know that I'm predisposed in this direction, I know that I *have* been predisposed in this direction for at least the last 16 years, and I know that I cannot count on my desires and on myself to change into something more readily socially acceptable: as this, in concert with my own happiness, *will not happen*. This would seem to build the case for something like a soul, even if the concept of the soul is flawed (which I believe to be the case). What happens when people crush themselves in because of fear of others' reactions is that, like myself in the past, they become upset and suicidal, and live for as long as they can fulfilling the wishes of others instead of living for themselves. I'd rather be out as transgendered than waste the rest of my life, or end up dead by whatever self-destructive method.

What I've found, since coming to terms with this, is that maybe the person I became when I first went out on my own, as tortured and angry as he was, actually was the beginning of my "finding myself". Maybe the pain was me allowing myself to feel what *I* felt because of the past 12 years, regardless of others saying that I shouldn't feel it, or getting feedback of "how can a child suffer?" I was in a group the other day where someone was encouraging me to think about *what kind* of a man I wanted to be, as he noticed the acerbic note in my voice as I spoke about some things that had angered me. But I can't disown my anger. I have reasons for being angry. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily take it out on other people, but I have a right to have my own feelings, to acknowledge my own feelings -- and I have, to a point, a right to express them.

It does seem to be so that at least for now, I'm having to live with the idea of not being a "good boy." It doesn't mean I'm going to start bar fights (gotta pick your battles), but it does mean that I am searching for a radically inclusive vision of who I am...because that is who I am, and I cannot change it. I've been in the darkness for too long to just let go and be happy like nothing is wrong, when I know that is not the case; and I know that if I am not honest with myself, I'll lose myself again.

My surest identity, from the time when I was more outwardly identifying as plural, also was identified with demons. There was a reason for that, even if I don't consciously know the whole story.

...And I suppose that's enough for now. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
2012-11-09 5:54
Find
Quote
Give Thanks
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)