[Gary Wassner]

If life should be understood backwards but must be lived forwards, at what point do we begin the process of understanding? Can we ever contemplate clearly what has already occurred, or are we deluding ourselves every time? And what then does that tell us about our ego, our very own sense of self? That it is as inaccurate as our memory?

[Priestvyrce]

To answer your first question, I would say at a young age, maybe two or three. You know that will hurt you type of thing. But I think as we get older our memories do play tricks on us, to "look back" is harder and harder to decipher. Even something as a year ago, I have to strain to remember what I did and where I was at emotional.

As to my sense of worth, I think that we(I) carry a kind of sense of who I am and what is happening to me. It just, we don't as a culture tend to really reflect on what we did yesterday. I've just started to really look at my yesterdays and trying to decipher their meanings to why I am the way that I am. So yes, our egos do tend to paint a different picture than what may have really happened in our past. You constantly on news programs and then you watch a Documentary on the same subject and find out that what you thought you knew, is called into serious doubt.

Hope that I answered what you wanted to be answered.

[Gary Wassner]

You answered one aspect of the question. But I raised it more to get the responses from people then because I knew the answers myself.

I just wonder if our perception of ourselves is really any clearer than another's might be of us. I also wonder how we identify anyone else in this world if not for our belief in the continuuim of time and the constancy of personality. Time never stops, yet the ego persists throughout. Ever changing, ever the same?

I am just a jumble of impressions to you that build and strengthen with each word I speak, each view you have of me, each moment you spend with me. At some point, you call me by my name and you begin to know me. What really do you know? What really do we know about ourselves if we are always caught in the cycle of change?

[kater]

I think that for that moment, in that place you are whoever you choose to show me. Like the lies thread, if you have convinced yourself you are a certain type of person then that is who I will see. It may not be who you are or even who you believe yourself to truly be, but what I will 'see' is that which you wish to portray. Personality is to me a series of masks, like the russian doll, you can strip it away and strip it away and there will be a core which is you. But you have to choose for a person to see the core or even the inner layers. Some make more masks or layers than others and the change in the core personality over time will be only minutely reflected in the masks or layers.

As for the core, do I know clearly who that is? I would say yes, but it is entirely subjective. Some people may be entirely clueless as to who they truely are, others know very definitively who they are. What we know almost absolutely about ourselves are the things that don't change, which place the changes in stark relief. What I believe the core comes down to are a set of understandings that anchor our true personality and allow additions to be made to this personality without fear of losing ourselves.

[Gary Wassner]

Are the insane ones then, those who have lost that thread that binds their present to their past?

It is the kernel that you mention that i am trying to find. What is it that we call ourselves? A physical presence? It's more than that, and it seems to exist despite time and space. So what is it? And where do we search to find it?

[kater]

Like you said earlier, I don't have the answers and you're far more likely to have come closer to any definite answer than I :) However that doesn't help the thread.
I agree with the notion that the insane ones have lost ties that bind their present to the past but also they have lost the ties that bind them to any 'now', any singular reality. For them I believe the world is happening all at once, there is no order or a clear demarcation of one moment progressing into the next. So the world they experience is everything, there is no way to create, what I guess you'd call a legitimate personality because there is no series of experiences or tangible events to tie into the core of their personality. Thats why I believe many remain childlike, there is no method of evolution for their personality so the core is never given a chance to expand into a definitive series of understandings with which to face the world.

I don't believe what you would call 'ourselves' is a physical presence, if the personality changes then the body changes equally as much I believe. I often have trouble reconciling the bearded person who looks at me in the mirror with who I am, especially in comparison with the idealistic, clean-shaven look that smiles smugly from pictures of my youth.
If your asking me is there such a thing as a soul, I personally will say no but if its all the same I'll take an either way bet on that come d-day :)
I think the core is an idea, an idea forged by all we have experienced on the surface level of consciousness and details that remain hidden deeper in our subconsciousness. My personality is the level of control I apply to my behavioural patterns and the manner in which that control is applied. My personality is an extension of facets of my environment and my upbringing that have made the most impact on my 'blank slate' of being, enough to be retained as I grow both mentally and intellectually. These facets allow for an infinite number of permutations exhibited in the infinite number of personalities on this planet.

[JRMurdock]

Interesting question.

But what happens if we lives in one direction and reflect in another?

This poses a dilemma for when does reflection fail to see clearly? As you get older, the experiences you had when you were younger become diluted, faded, less clear. This makes reflection more susceptible to our own recollection which may not be a true representation of what actually occurred. That being said, we may gain or lose based on how we interrupt those events. By having a favorable outcome, one we learned from, we may feel good about a given situation. The same situation viewed as a negative to ourselves later in life would detract from the learning experience.

To me the question is not when the two intersect, but at what point to we let memories go and stop reflecting as our life is the accumulation of those reflected moments and how we perceive them. If we do not look back or look back too far, we end up with a watered-down version of our past and become less of who we could be should we drink from those memories that are fresh and helpful.

[Gary Wassner]

But all along, throughout your post Kater, you said 'my'. What is that 'my' you are referring to? What hold your personality together? What binds you to this earth?

And Maus, think of a person who suffers from Alzheimers and loses that thread. Who are they? Who have they become? We still think of them as the same person they were, though their own memory of that chain has long ago departed them. So is it the physical that defines them? Are they who they, were or not any longer? If I lost the chain of events that lead from my past until now, would I lose myself?

[JRMurdock]

And Maus, think of a person who suffers from Alzheimers and loses that thread. Who are they? Who have they become? We still think of them as the same person they were, though their own memory of that chain has long ago departed them. So is it the physical that defines them? Are they who they, were or not any longer? If I lost the chain of events that lead from my past until now, would I lose myself?

Just as you said: 'WE' think of that person as the same person. We still have our own memories of that person and how we interrupt who that person is. If that person has lost part of themselves, that person is NOT who they once were but have evolved into a new person. It would be the same as if the person had Amnesia but to a lesser degree as the man with alzheimers still has some sense of who he once was, but not a full understanding of who they were.

[Gary Wassner]

But why do you assume that the 'who' they are now is no more valid an entity than the 'who' they were before the disease set in. What defines a human being? And when do we begin to recognize the entity that is driving us?