Digged Up

Growing up, the definition of identity diluted over time. From a symbol that helps conceive underlying principles and proclivities to a conflation with what is meant by preference. The adulteration of language, disciplines, or technology isn't anything new whether by merging narratives or the metastasizing misuse, and education in most cases is the simple circumvention. Of identity, however, somehow encroached unscathed, chipping away at our prized quality, individualism. Grab the shovel, we have a roseless grave to dig.

The world had given us numerous artifacts to help constitute our overall identity, but it is through their heavy use in excavation that brings definition. Authors, professors, mentors, trainers, parents, whatever designation; they are lodestars; their effect should come to, through context exploration, the cost reduction of searching, and, through artifact provisions—commonly in form of advice—functional digging.

With this perspective, it makes it easier to refute all who dismiss rudimentary education as meaningless, because without it you're shackled to infantile faculties, making the pursuit of self sovereignty ultimately harder. Even if one claims an early attachment to an ideal self, he will, with great certainty, face a strata of responsibilities that is cross-discipline which for the most part be untimely met.

Faulty assimilation of artifacts is the result of indolence. For us who are not intellectually gifted, an observed pattern is forcing the artifactual rewards from other wielders to be our own. How well you understand this can be tested in a simple question, are your opinions truly your own or are they mirrored? The more controversial, the better.

This is where those in opposition will fail to see the contrast, but one of the crucial roles of building identity is having an autonomous regulator for vicissitudes that antagonize it. Indeed, without any form of challenge it would be a vacuous design to be distinct. To elucidate, there are three fields to examine:

The consistent, general measure for one's growth is through his perspective and understanding of the world. The opportunity for unique identity is unassailably there, not necessarily through adopting them, but, as mentioned earlier with artifacts, by heeding to the greats and integrating to your own. Uniqueness is also compounded by how refined you make immutable traits. If one condemned himself to constricted, fluid intelligence by not leveraging the effects of synaptic pruning throughout adoloscence, the key to change the world remains unbroken as long as each unforgiving minute is filled with sixty seconds of unrelenting force.

Said force requires intrepidity. Many attempt its awakening for others by offering cheap platitudes, like "as long as you try your hardest [...]," when it fails to ignite a form of courage that does not dare question itself. Its bestowment is beyond my element; beyond anyone unknowing of your fantasies for that matter, because if there isn't a life of virtue etched in your heart then the unguided spirit dies with the flame. Moving without a tablet is to move blindly.

I believe the lack of this field helps explain the underlying cause of depravity. Those helpless in ineludible battles entered with a working conscientiousness, but been beaten down to its removal.

Worse than excised conscientiousness is becoming an agent for it. Those who expedite chaos are seducers and archons, one distributes; the other creates. Their works in full effect is the complete distortion of a particular reality, though as much as this is extremely relevant, it requires its own discussion.

Negationally, becoming an agent for good works better represents the influence field of identity. If we substitute man with any kind of living thing, it would make sense that the subjects of influence are not exclusive to their own kind, so for the recluse, you are marked with the same influence-potential as no other, but to make your own environment unreasonably less hospitable is akin to negative, interpersonal influence.

It is better to think of this form of evaluation as an implicit evaluation of identity. Keep in mind that we're digging up something that used to be intuitive. For cognitive ease, if it takes you more than a second to describe someone's overall identity, then you're on the right track.

Identifying someone would come to any degree of the three fields, no matter the context. To avoid convoluted dialogue, we use symbols. The title of a soldier represents their strength, service years, and leadership; the seals and bar codes on government-issued IDs and certificates represent competencies and intellectual capacity, usually from multitudinal assessments, to determine how much we fit in the nation, for their safety and ours; the seniority level and position within a company represents specialized proficiencies and growth, as well as the ability to provide mentorship. Synthesizing, identity provides value, to you and or to your surroundings.

Profile is another possible conflation, though mentioning this should be enough for those confused about the dealing of physical attributes.

Identity is meant to be complex, it's emblematic of every record that defines the most updated version of you. The initiative for this post was to share how much true self-exploration had helped me bolster through challenges in life. To see it trashed for the purpose of asserting predilections as an unforgivable offense to the humanity we've built.

A quick way to see the difference is by appending a "which means..." toward your supposed identification.

1.
You are a dog lover which means you enjoy the company of dogs
2.
You are a dog trainer which means you offer services in adding utility or rectifying behaviors to other dogs
3.
You are a transwoman which means you have changed preferences to your public profile and sexual/romantic relationships
4.
You are an advocate for the safety of gay individuals who seek to live normally among others which means you branded yourself a representative for the group and will dish out efforts to your cause
5.
You are an aspiring software engineer which means you have an objective alignment and a stronger vision for the self
6.
You are an entry-level Svelte developer who's an agile learner who can convert mockups to the frontend with minimal guidance which means you can contribute a degree of effort in solving a technical web-based problem one or more people have

Observing non-sequiturs is unavoidable, but rightfully so. Fixing no identity is to add identity, there is no other way around it. Speaking the red is not a violation, as it simply refers to your preferences. Not knowing the difference between it and identity, however, is.