There is a certain mood, a manner of being, an existential modification that takes place within the self’s conceptualization of itself. If we self-identify with a group identity, with a concept that denotes the existence we believe ourselves to be, we become modified in a manner that is in direct relation to the significance of the term, in a manner that necessarily follows from the sense that we give to the concept in our defining. By defining the nature of our own being as that of being a “philosopher”, “proletariat” (worker), as being a liberal or a conservative, we gear our existence into the groove that is defined by the sense that the word as idealized provides to us in our own understanding of it. Our understanding of language and its application to defining the nature of our being, i.e. who we are, is modified by the signification that the social milieu in which we find ourselves, historically, has created in defining the term and has so given its defining over to us. The way in which we understand the term “philosopher” or “conservative”, as deterministically intuited through our experience both introspectively contemplated and informed by externalities, is the way in which the term will modify us in its taking up as believed to be referencing our Being.

We take up the reference of our being to that which we associate it to, to that which we are able to understand it by. If we believe the defining conceptualizations of our being are those that contain a group identity, or of any description, we not only apply the cognitive label through making the judgment and forming an internal thought such as “I exist as a philosopher”, but we modify our embodied perspective and its correlative characteristics in relation to which we are certain of the description, and in a manner that is extracted from our understanding of the given description. We become geared into the world in a manner that puts on a lenses that is colored by the description of our identity, and our actions reflect this position. This description can be presented externally, can be judged by another in their evaluation of us, and we can take it up either by doxically accepting the description of others, or through our own intuitional connection, regardless, the taking up, the accepting, the gearing into the description, modifies our character and perspective in direct relation to the conceptualization that we take up.

The prevalent descriptions of characteristics of political groups as presented in the media, in our social interactions, the societal defining of psychological traits, the class separations and racial connotations which are thrust upon us by our perception of auditory signals, written, or intuited designations, form groups with significations that mean something, and are differentiated according to our introjecting the content that relates to them in our formulation of the word. The meanings of such terms become modified as pushed upon us by the environment in which we find ourselves in.

Our lenses through which we take up our being in the world, and the subjective experience of consciousness which results from this filtration, is constituted by the color of the lenses which we use in our depiction of ourselves. While the initial filter is the pre-conscious perspectival taking up and revealing, in a bottom up fashion, the top down integration of conscious direction can cause a perspectival modification, thus what we consciously value is designated by our embodied perspective, yet simultaneously informed by consciously formulated ideals. One such conscious formulation is the change in values as modified by conscious self-reflection, and the manner in which we tend to do so happens to be linguistically, or conceptually, using language. This language which we use to describe our own Being, orients us towards the world in a manner that coincides with the way in which we understand ourselves, and this is where behavior can change in relation to the values underlining our understanding of self-constructed definitions in reference to our own Being.

We don’t only conceptualize ourselves as we are, but also as we wish to be, what we wish to be is due in the first instance to our biologically instantiated value system, and subsequently modified by the environmental and social milieu to which the value system is modified throughout the historicity of our existence. Our historicity, insofar as it is temporal, builds upon the first order biological filtration of our perceptive system (Value System Instantiation), in a progressive manner. As more present moments don their contributions towards effecting the totality of our being (over time), the value system is modified in accordance with that which is determined to follow the cultural environment as mediated and understood through the biological organism’s perspective. Thus, we develop our facticity, that which constitutes the fact of our Being in the present moment, and we find within us a certain orientation towards the world that is directly influenced by the value structure that has so been developed, desiring this or that, pursuing this or that, behaving in accordance with this or that, and wanting to be this or that. This desire towards embodying or actualizing a certain description, can lead to self-connotations that one believes to be an accurate depiction of oneself, which is in alignment with one’s value system. We only believe what we believe, and this changes due to cultural norms, our environment, that which we are educated and that which impresses itself on us as being most valuable.

Ignorance of far ranging perspectives by the narrow indoctrination towards a specific ideology might not be seen by the naïve consciousness which knows of no other existence, but unbeknownst to it the very core of ones Being is permeated by said ideology and one’s entire existence becomes characterized by a critical permeation of the idea. Every action, thought, or word spoken is an expression of the totality of the Being which we are, and if this being is characterized by a narrow ideology, you can be sure the person will live out this ideology across the span of his existence. The label which is supported by the ideology gears us into living in accordance with it. The prevalence of societal norms, of societally supported descriptions which one believes that embodying would better support oneself in navigating life, dominate the psyche as a driving factor to actualize in oneself, and can lead to the behavior modifications which go along with applying such descriptions to one’s own being. How I came to desire to be a philosopher, how I came to refrain from applying political labels to myself, is instantiated upon the nature of my being in a causally determined way that is no different than the ideologically possessed, I am, as well, ideologically possessed by the idea that this description of my being is not only accurate, but the best I have found so far. The objective status of our primary identification in relation to other descriptions depends upon the nature of the judgment we place upon descriptions as being “better” or “worse”, our morality, and what we see to be the “good” will inform which values come on top, in terms of what we spend time in association with, as well as in how we identify. Being that this judgment of our current self-description and its contents are all instantiated in a manner that is beyond our control, and have been the product of a historicity towards the development of actualizing our being to believe of itself to be so constituted in the present moment, is likewise out of our control, in the same manner as any other ideological possession we can point to.

The description we apply to ourselves orients us in a way that modifies our social interaction, and how we behave towards others, not only in the manner in which we present ourselves, but in the manner in which we wish the other to perceive of us, itself modifying our behavior to be in accordance with the desired instantiation of the mind of the other in their perception. This manner of being-towards-others, conversely, will affect the manner in which others treat us, and how their being becomes oriented in the space of which is perceptibly shared by ourselves and them, as we meet in the world and occupy the same practical milieu which can be affected by both of us. Thus, the manner in which we describe ourselves, does more than mediate the content of our subjective experience by modifying actions and behavior in accordance with it, but it has an effect on our being-towards-others, their being-towards-us, and the content that stems from such interactions.

Every moment in our life is a manifestation of the totality of our being, in one way or another, we are always authentically representing ourselves by any action, behavior, thought, emotion, mood, mode of being, or perception that takes place. To him who is dishonest, or attempting to put on a deceptive act that paints his character other than it would otherwise be, that too is reflective of the person’s Being, if such knowledge is ever truly revealed. In seeking to better orient ourselves to the world in which we find ourselves, we are constantly seeking the mode of being which is best suited for the environment that surrounds us, the people we come into contact with, the thoughts that manifest themselves, in short, our Being is seeking optimization of itself, towards the management of the set of all moments. Obviously, the best solution is to seek to better oneself in handling the set of all problems, rather than individual problems, but both can be mutually improved upon through the development of the other. The way in which we do so, the best life we can live, the method of gearing ourselves into the world, and the role that conscious self-conceptualization plays in modifying such areas of our most profound longing, becomes extraordinarily significant to us, insofar as the content of our subjective experience is modified by it. Since the content of our subjective experience is of integral importance to us, and poses a significance that is valuable regardless of ideological possession, we ought to consciously direct ourselves towards those descriptions which modify our being towards producing the greatest amount of wellbeing, subjectively, the most amount of time possible.

This isn’t a merely selfish endeavor at the peril of all others, although it can be. If it appears best to us to identify and behave as a tyrant and deceiver, for whatever reason, one will experience the subjective experience that alignment with such an ideal provides. One in such a position may fail to see the benefit in acting otherwise, and will never know what they are missing, and to those in such a position, they will meet with unending misfortune, and, most likely, an extremely dissatisfied experience of life. We will no longer be treated with love and respect, will probably find ourselves hated, distrusted, imprisoned or injured as a consequence. This negative experience may be the catalyst to change, or may not be. But, if given the opportunity to experience what acting in a manner that doesn’t reflect that identity can provide, it may sway the person’s judgment of such identification, and lead to meaningful change to a different identity.

We can mitigate the dangers in identification, as well as exploit the usage. By limiting ourselves to a single political position, we alienate ourselves from other perspectives, and close off ourselves to seeing the entirety of the picture. By defining ourselves by our job, or our current role in our lives, we face an identity crisis should our position change. If we identify with character traits that we value, such as having a strong mind, being disciplined in contact, as being a person who is able to be virtuous, we identify with a description that is not only valued and thus desired, but we become able to better modify our character to represent the identity that we desire. By identification with discipline, we become more urged to remain faithful to exercise, diet, and hard work. By identifying as a loving friend, rather than, say, “John’s friend” we become better suited to care for friends as they come and go out of our lives. By identifying as a strong leader, rather than “the supervisor of a certain company”, we don’t lose our identity should the company fail, and we become able to embody leadership principles across the board in our lives.

 Our being in the world must take into account the social milieu in which we find ourselves, as we are social beings which place a significant amount of importance upon our relations with others, and our behavior must reflect that internal disposition, which can be modified by the self-conceptualizations as described above. So a merely selfish mode of being that is the production of self-aggrandizement in self-depiction is clearly not the answer, if one is wise, and has a grasp upon one’s true value system, they will take into account the many factors towards which our wellbeing and environment are conditioned by. We must take into account society, family, friends, that which we value, that arena of experience which is closest to ourselves, not merely that which is conscious experience itself, but also its mediating factors that can be altered based upon our behavior, in their reflective affecting of our subjective experience.