The masks of inscrutability, or are you really you?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But why adopt a nickname at all, than? If you is you and Aiwendil too, why not choose your own name as a nick?

It seems I have to elaborate on this first (judging from reaction the sentence was followed with) - it was rhetorical question, folks. Still more it was dealt with in my previous posts .

Let me tease you a little, would you?

'What? In riddles?' said Gandalf. 'No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying.'

For the sake of democracy, I do not put the claim of [superior] wisdom forth, but the rhetorical question causing such a storm was addressed to Aiwendil mainly, who reacted in a way expected

Now onward we move:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

To me, information is information. An emotion is information. A concept is information. Actually, I could throw us into quite off-topic realms and go on about everything being information, but I won't

Though I can sign my name right down under your statement, it is not the mind per se I value as the focus of personality, nor do I believe that the sum of my thoughts and emotions makes me myself, but rather is vehicle where my "I" resides and expresses itself by means of. I've let the slip of the tongue reveal it in my previous - it is my will, not my mind (will - the thing which chooses from numerous thoughts and emotions produced by my mind (which may be dependent on external irritants) and sent up to its judgement, supresses some, upholds some, makes a choice).

The core of our disagreement must be the fact we simply label the same things differently - I call informational imprint your (internet) words left on me just another ‘mask’ of yours, you – the ‘unmasking’ since it removed to an extent the preconceptions I may have had about you have I seen you before hearing you out.

But let me argue that the mind (definition – physical brain and emotions/thoughts produced by it) is just another ‘mask’, on a different level (mask of my will, even?). Suppose I suffer damage to my brain (God save from, theoretical computation) and loose an ability to type or even express myself verbally at all. Am I not a person anymore? (afore this is followed by storm of replies, I’ll answer myself – of course I am) But certain aspects of my person, one of my ‘masks’ is lost – there will be no more HerenIstarion around.

but my point is that if anything the self-chosen one is less of a mask than the other.

I see what you mean. Again, we differ in evaluation of the same things on minor level. I don’t label ‘mask’ as thing bad, I don’t imply it is for hiding things. But going back to ‘everything is information’ statement, I see it fit to coin the following definition:

Mask [as it is used here by yours truly] is a certain mode of self-expression person chooses at each given moment.

The curios thing which caused my re-participation (apart from osanwe, which was a catalyst) in this thread was evidence that ‘mask’ - certain mode of self-expression (that is, internet forum account), once defined with the name (with a screename) may become somehow independent, apart from the person which expresses itself through it, even modify the personality which expresses itself – i.e. grow certain features of personality and become dear in itself, not as a mode, but as a [kind of a different] person. (Personal evidence – on this very thread – my post #106 before editing was a bit nasty (my apologies, TP, but I expected something more serious in return ). Than I caught myself thinking – this is not the way HerenIstarion (!) should write, and edited it). Now that may be I’m overtly prone to analyzing things.

And on general level:

My initial post of the thread was about Are we really we here. Now I think it was unfortunate choice of wording, I may restate it as follows: Are we wholly we here? and answer it accordingly – No, here, as elswhere, we are partly we only. By this I don’t mean that we lose the parts that are other than expressed by words. They are here with us. But what each of us sees of another member is an imprint, a ‘mask’

I.e. I may know more about Mr.X’s mind, whom I talk about theology online with every night, than his immediate neighbour knows, whom he ‘smalltalks’ to every morning, but I know less then the neighbour in some other aspects. The will, however, as I see it, expresses itself in ‘smalltalk’ as in ‘bigtalk’ likewise. I and his neighbour may both know him for generous chap, I – as I’ve read his views on the subject, neighbour – as he lets him have his extra milk. But the thing is, as neither I nor the neighbour may boast of having direct access to Mr.X through osanwe, or whatever we choose to call it, for all we know, his generosity may be a natural thing to him or a result of great self control and worked out habit of beating his greed down. It is a ‘mask’ we see in both cases. And it is the mask that matters for us, as we have no means of access to his ‘real’ self. And another point of mine (parable of masked man) was that the longer the ‘mask’ is on, the more ‘real self’ resembles it)