Part III of Greater-Than-One Parts… Read Part I and Part II first, if you haven’t already
Pt. 2: TL;DR
Last week, we attempted to construct an Identity Equation. We started by defining Visible (v) and Non-visible (x) Identifiers as:
v = {Nose, Mouth, Height, Skin, Teeth, Jewelry, Hair, Clothes, Tattoos, Build, …, η}
and
x = {Hobbies, Intellectual Curiosity, Toothpaste Flavor Preference, Family Life, Books Read, Neighborhood/Residence, Friends, Schooling, Hours Spent Doom-Scrolling vs. In-Nature, News Sources, Spirituality/Religious Beliefs/Rituals, Favorite Pizza Place, Exercise Habits, # Items Growing Mold In Fridge, What Keeps Me Up At Night, What Glues Me To The Couch, Things Hanging On My Bedroom Walls, Concerts Attended, Places I’ve Been, Places I’ll Go, Dr. Seuss Books I Know, …, η}
(You might notice as I did, during Revision #49 —which occurs, as everyone knows, while drinking beer with Writer Friend in a downtown whiskey bar, after Thing #5 was already published—that Work is not contained in either v or x. Whoopsies! Of course Work is part of Identity. But also, part of me is glad I forgot Work. Work is important but it doesn’t necessitate Identity. But also… Toothpaste Flavor Preference made the cut, so…)
Eventually, we concluded with this phantasmic, silly little Identity Equation:
It reads: “Identity is equal to the sum of all Visible and Non-visible Identifiers, multiplied by Community, divided by Society; across time, from Zero to Infinity”.
Besides being A Mouthful, what do we think about that equation (now that i has progressed, with another week of Time, further from Zero, closer to Infinity)?
This i (Sam) feels inadequate just looking at that thing. When I look at the body of text surrounding The Identity Equation (Thing #5), I see a bloodbath of Red Grading Pen marking up all 5 sections (including that extraneous Endnote!). These problems demonstrate my ineptitude as Mathematician—yes, undoubtedly—but also as: Philosopher, Anthropologist, Social Commentator, Theologian, Writer. Below are a small list of issues with The Identity Equation.
The (not so) Imaginary Issue
Let’s get the Math over with first, cool? I mean, Cool?
In Math & Sciences, the term i is generally used to represent “imaginary” numbers. Often we use:
or
That means “i-squared equals negative-1”. Can you think of any number that multiplies by itself to equal -1?
If you don’t remember how double-negatives work, here’s a quick lesson from a Great Favorite Family Member of mine (sent as encouragement after I called Sam a Phony Imposter in Thing #2):
Phony imposter = double negative which therefore cancels that thought ( I.e. imposter) and makes you a valid writer
(Everyone, all together now: “awwwww, how sweet!”)
As Great Favorite Family Member explains, a double-negative makes a positive. In more direct words, it’s impossible to square a number and get -1. So the above equation becomes impossible to solve … well, actually, not impossible: Imaginary.
Contrary to what the name may imply, Imaginary Numbers are actually very useful in Real Math and Computing because they make Complex Numbers, which are used for things like Sound Visualization (‘member iTunes Equalizers? I ‘member) and other cool “AI”-type things.
If Identity were actually a Mathematic Equation, Variable, or Term, it makes more sense to This i that Identity belong to the Imaginary set more than the set of Real Numbers.
Even though it’s Math-wrong, using i to refer to Identity seems right to This i.
How often do we create these fictional, Imaginary Identities? Even all those Super Official Personality Tests can’t decide on your Real Identity, which is why they give you three: How You See Yourself, How Others See You, How You Actually Are.
Most of what we are is some figment of Imagination. I create Imaginary Identities for You, You for Me, Us for Them, and so on. But, just because they’re Imaginary, doesn’t mean they don’t exist in some respect. Our Imaginary Identities mix with our Real Identities. This is what makes us Complex animals.
If we didn’t have the Imaginary, we’d very possibly still be butt-scratching, bug-eating monkeys. Not that we’re not butt-scratching, bug-eating monkeys—most of the time we probably are, just with an added Screen in front of us—but sometimes we’re more…well, Complex.
The Invisible Issue
Back to the (kinda?) Liberal Arts. Where do we draw the line between Visible and Non-visible?
Where do we put a Tattoo that no one can see—in v or x? Birthmarks? Scars? Clothing? Jewelry? Are they still Visible Identifiers if only i (or People I’m Intimate With) can see them?
What about i’s Political Views when they appear Visible on i’s body? What about other Visible x’s? Favorite Sports Team? Art I Appreciate? Religious Beliefs? Had i been donning a MAGA hat, a Dark Side of the Moon Light Prism t-shirt, Yankee Logo tattoo, and a bedazzled Jesus Piece around i’s neck, are these now Visible Identifiers?
In other words, what’s to prevent an element of x (the entire set, even) from becoming v?
On the other hand, what about some stranger who Looks Like Me but then speaks and their voice is… uh, Foreign? What about a stranger who Looks Foreign (whatever that means to i) but, when Looks Foreign speaks, they sound like i, or how i perceive those that Looks Like Me to sound?
So… what do we do with Sound? Is Sound… Visible?
What do we do with all those non-Visual senses? Strictly speaking, the Non-visual are probably Non-visible. But, if we think about Visible Identifiers as more “surface-level” or “potentially immediately noticeable”, then maybe i’s Pleasant Aroma or Audible Soup-Slurping or Firm Handshake Grip are actually Visible. Heck, even Taste might be Visible if i lives in a Community of Cheek-Kiss Introductions (e.g. many European cultures): i probably tastes Concealer or Lemony Lotion or Warm Sweat or Dry Cold when greeting someone. These Sounds, Smells, Touches and Tastes all add to i, obviously—but are are they Visual or Non-visual?
Wait a sec—this is screwed up—is this Identity Equation even ADA Accessible? What’s someone who’s Blind (or otherwise unable to perceive Visual Identifiers) supposed to do? Or anyone with a different sensory-impeding (or other) disability? This equation doesn’t seem equally representative for all i’s.
Actually, come to think of it, The Identity Equation is worse than just Non-ADA-Compliant. It fails Everyone.
Everyone incurs situations of No Visual Perception. i has correspondences with Someone on the Phone or Online. i has never seen this Someone, but i has certainly heard them—even if “hearing” might be reading written text not spoken word. No doubt, i has created some Identity for this Someone. Someone is Also A Big Fan Of Food-Porn or is Fellow Taylor Swift Discorder. Actually, who knows if Someone is even real? Someone could be a Catfisher or a Bot doing Automated Sales Outreach—what are all those Data Points about i that Bot uses to target i in Automated Sales Outreach? Does Bot know i beyond the surface-level (Visual)? Bot knows things that Friends don’t even know (e.g. map of Internet Behavior). Who’s to know who Someone is on the Internet? Regardless, without fail, Someone’s left a message in i’s inbox. So, Someone is someone to i. And i someone to Someone.
Oy. This is really making my head hurt. Point is: there are endless problems with a strict v and x division.
The Divisible Issue
Surely, defining Visual and Non-visible Identifiers is difficult enough. Using them as the sole mechanism for dividing Identity is, well, also problematic.
The Identity Equation over-simplifies its variables. Both v and x could be reduced along the lines of Given vs. Chosen (or Nature vs. Nurture). This would give us four Identifiers:
Visible-Given
Visible-Chosen
Non-visible-Given
Non-visible-Chosen
Take i who is experiencing significant hair loss. From Hereditary Hair Loss, let’s say.
In this case, the Visible-Given can be called, Balding. How i interacts with/presents their hair loss (e.g. shave head, let sides & back flow, wear a hat, use Rogaine or take a pill, get hair plugs) becomes the Visible-Chosen.
There are Internal Consequences of Hereditary Hair Loss, too. i go through some sort of internal struggle/anxiety when confronting hair loss, which may be described as Non-visible-Given. There’s also the side-effects of how i interacts with/presents i’s hair loss (e.g. using Rogaine may cause burning or stinging, even dizziness and fainting), which might be described as Non-visible-Chosen.
Different example, to confuse things more:
Maybe i’s significant hair loss is from Treatment for Another Disease/Illness, like Cancer. Maybe the Cancer is hereditary (Given) but the Treatment is one of several options i chose from (which includes the choice of Do Nothing, aka Pray and Hope The Cancer Doesn’t Kill Ya), in which case now Balding becomes Visible-Chosen (…but via the Given, hereditary Cancer?)
Let’s make it even more difficult: what if i’s Cancer is because of Smoking? Now it’s totally Chosen, right? What about if the Cancer is from growing up in a house of Smokers—or working a job that, unbeknownst to i, exposed i to cancerous fumes—is that Chosen or Given?
Again: where do we draw the line?
This is one of the reasons This i simplified Identifier Variables to the Visible and Non-visible. We’re Here to discuss Identity. We’re not here for a Ship of Theseus or Determinism vs. Free Will debate… not right Now, at least. Conversations for other Things.
The larger point is: Identity is hard to define. It doesn’t really matter what formula we use, it will inevitably yield Not Totally Accurate results…we might even call them Imaginary results. The important thing is to try to identify biases in our assumptions of Someone (e.g. relying too heavily on the Visual or Surface-Level), to try our damn best to solve for x, however unknowable x may be.
There are many other problems with my Identity Equation. If You think of more, Kind Reader, please drop a comment Here, or feel free to shoot me a message if you prefer talking in Private. Instead of list them all (we’ll be Here for another Many Unbearable Hours, I’m afraid), it’s best we acknowledge The Identity Equation’s flaws and move forward.
In this spirit, we shall hence refer to This Series as An Identity Equation not The Identity Equation.
In revising the equation’s name my goal is to highlight that there are many problems with Classification, and therefore with narrowing in on Identity. Trying to Assign Names—to each Other and to our Selfs—and therefore develop a strong, singular sense of Identity is, to put it crassly, really f*kn difficult.
The best we can do is be mindful.
When we catch ourselves getting super line-drawy and Spider-Man finger-pointy, we should remind ourselves to be gentle. To each Other and, probably most importantly, to our Self.
References + More
Revision #49 occurs while drinking beer with Writer Friend but Funk #49 is a James Gang song featuring Joe Walsh of Eagles fame on lead vocals & guitar
Luddite I am, I learned the word “Theologians” from the Wilco song, not from, you know, Common Knowledge or Deductive Reasoning
Better descriptions of Imaginary Numbers and Square-Roots
The ‘member berries are a great South Park bit playing on America’s problematic nostalgia in the aftermath of the 2016 Trump election
The Light Prism is the album artwork for Pink Floyd’s 1973 album Dark Side of The Moon
A Jesus Piece is a style of jewelry (usually a necklace), as well as a great 2012 album by The Game and is otherwise popularly referenced/present in the Hip-Hop community
The image is a still from The Hangover of Zach Galifanakis’s character trying to count cards
If you don’t know the Finger-Pointing Spider-Man meme, this site explains too much