I haven't posted in a while, I do apologise, I've been quite ill. I've spent most of today trying to cough my lungs up through my throat. I decided that today I'm going to write about identity. Are you, you? Or is it not quite as simple as that?

It seems quite obvious that as you move through life, you continue to be you. It's funny how you don't notice how the exterior changes. Consider the idea of a clone; there is another you sitting across the room from you. He looks exactly the same as you, has had exactly the same life experiences and just is a second you. Who is the real you? Each of them will say themselves because the mind can't comprehend that there is another you. You can't both be you, can you? This seems like a bit of a silly metaphor because it's not possible that this situation could occur. The fact that you're both sitting on different sides of the room means that you are subtly different and not the same. But what if we say that your mind is split 50/50? One half is one part of you and the other half is another part of you, who is the real you? Is it the one you would choose if you had to rid yourself of one of the yous? But when who would be deciding which you to get rid of? A third you? I think maybe it would be impossible for the conscious person to be aware of the second personality, and unaware of the change from one to the other, so is then identity attached to consciousness (the aware half of your mind, not the dormant 'other' half) or is it attached to your body (the way people perceive you from the outside?)

I mean to say, if you are only ever aware of yourself as a single entity, and not the other opposing self in the same mind, then you are only ever of one identity, yes? But then people on the outside would witness you being two different persons, so you would have two identities, would you not? So maybe the answer to this question lies in how we would answer another question. Many things are like that.

If you were asked to write down everything about you that made you, you, that could be your identity could it not? This list of things that come together in a way unique to you. The longer the list the more unique you become. If you make a similar list in ten years time, the list would be different, wouldn't it? Even with reference to the original list, we change over time, so the new list that made up our identity would be different, do we agree? So, over time, one person will have two very different identities, how is that possible? Is the identity of something allowed to change over time? If it can change, how do identities stay unique? We are faced with that question again, aren't we. Is our identity related to our physical body (we are still the same person, we inhabit the same body, and thus our identity is retained) or is our identity a sum of our consciousness (and thus, allowed to morph and change over time)?

Let us now consider the question of slowly changing over time. I think it may be linked to the last question, but it may also be different. Imagine you are a car. You start off as this car, but over time parts stop working or break and they are replaced. After ten years, there are no parts original to your car any more, but are you still the same car? You feel like the same car, you noticed no definite point in time that you stopped being the old car and started becoming the new car, but you are definitely not the car you used to be. I think this is turning into a metaphor for the last paragraph, but I'll continue regardless. So you definitely have a different identity than the old car, but at no point was there a sudden change. Does this mean that the two different identities are actually the same? Does time warp identity?

I worry sometimes. I feel no emotion, no happiness or joy or elation, just nothingness. Apart from sadness, and occasionally anger towards inanimate objects. I worry that if I go and ask for help, and I get fixed so that I can feel again, that I will lose this part of me. The part that is sometimes called 'deep', the part that my friends and those around me cannot fathom because it lurks in the depths of darkness. I like this part of me. I feel that this part of me makes me Jack. If I get given medication or go through mental exercises to reopen the emotional part of my mind, will this part of me become hidden? Will I still be the same Jack? I'll look the same, but if this part of me is gone, will I still be the same? Would I retain my identity if I, in the process of regaining my emotions, forgot that this part of me existed? Does identity revolve around what we know about ourselves, or what we know we don't know about ourselves?

So many people around me understand the world only in black and white - right and wrong. They cannot see that what is wrong for one person can be right for someone else. I think I understand rationally better than many people that often a story has more than one side, and I worry that this part of me will also go if I get better. Will I become shallow and unthinking? Unconcerned with what happens around me? From books and films we see that the wise one is the eternally tortured one. He looks at you with sad eyes and you know that he can see everything, and everything is horrible and painful. I would like to be wise, and maybe eternal sadness is a burden that is worth undertaking in return for wisdom.

What is wisdom? Some believe that wisdom is knowing how to always make the right choice. Others believe that wisdom is ultimate knowledge. Which do you think is a better asset? I think wisdom means more that you know that there must be mistakes as well as knowledge and truth. Wisdom means that you know that the world is evil and that horrendous things happen, and that you cannot stop that. You must not stop that. The world is a horrific place, but it is also full of beauty too. I think you need to understand that the horror must exist for the beauty to exist also. I also think that you need to understand that even with the knowledge wisdom gives you, you cannot stop these bad things. You must allow the world to continue around you.

If given the choice between ultimate knowledge, and ultimate wisdom, which would you take? I think many would mistakenly take knowledge over wisdom forgetting that knowledge means nothing without the ability to understand it. The King has the power to know everything in the land, but the wise man will still make better decisions, for he knows that there must be a balance of good and evil, dark and light. Obviously if the King was wise enough to make good of his power then he and the wise man would be the greatest of friends. I think the King would be wise if he understood that he was not wise, and he consulted in the wise man as a result.

Too many questions, yet again, but I hope I have stretched your minds a little.

So long, So love.