(11-15-2017, 06:44 PM)Diana Wrote:(11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: The labels do not define, imo, people have to define labels and then those definitions through labels are applied by the person. All the defining is still done by the individual. For example, many words mean different things to different people so one word label doesnt necessarily mean the same thing to one person as another. Such in the case with my fiance's younger sister apparently it was popular to use the word "trash" to describe what is cool. So call in yourself or someone else trash would be a compliment. Thus, I don't think 'labels' are nearly as concrete as they are made out to be even if some people treat them that way.
I don't see slang (trash) as being comparable to labeling someone's sexuality. As far as labels not being as concrete as they are made out to be—then why seek them or use them? I can see wanting to discover an identity or tendency and utilizing a category to become clear about something; but why then use the label for yourself if you don't subscribe to the general meaning? What purpose does it serve? To tell someone, I am pansexual or asexual or gay or heterosexual, must bring with this declaration an agreement to what that means via using the label. Otherwise, why not use your own words if needed?
(11-15-2017, 03:15 PM)Aion Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of identity and from misunderstanding through misnomer and I empower you to discover that through whatever conceptualization works for you. I am just always eager to point out that whatever is true for one, the opposite is probably true for another. Not intending to challenge your way of thinking or anything. I personally see myself as "silence", without words, so I do understand what you are trying to get at. I am just trying to clarify my own perspective.
You mean truth is relative to the person? Well, that depends on what you think of as truth. I would say perspective and perception are relative to the person, but I suspect there are universal truths, or one might say universal laws, like the Law of One. I'm open to new input though, and what I might suspect is a universal truth at this point will most probably change or even cease to exist as a supposition.
What do you mean by seeing yourself as "silence," without words? I'd like you to expound on that.
I think you're asking the wrong person. I don't adhere to 'labels' in the sense you are suggesting but I appreciate the purpose they serve for some and that is more my point. I think that some people place a lot of weight on words and other people do not. So maybe for some people such a thing is a strong declaration of identity, but for others they may not look so deep in to it. It's a different journey of discovery for everyone. Not everyone finds their groove right away, so they may go through a few different identities which may be totally opposite to eachother before settling on a sense of self. Some use labels to navigate this sense of self. Others seek to shed it away. It is just a different method.
I actually think there is a lot of Eastern influence in the idea of dissolution, whereas in the Western there is more building up. The two types of system are complimentary but you only sometimes see them portrayed together.
As for seeing myself as silence, that is the core identity which I know myself as, it is perfect, absolute equilibrium, unmoving, eternal, untouched. Nothing disturbs it, nor is it ever disturbed. It is absolute, infinite potential and thus completely Unmanifest. Thus, I am Silence. I am the void before the breath before the word. Yet, all these are just words which points away from that which I am, which is only properly expressed as utter silence.