|
Identity as an operationalized term utilized throughout the course of this study refers to the outer me, that which others know of me. Interestingly enough, it is possible for another to interpret my identity from a singular expression of part of my self (or selves). Clearly there are intersections between concepts of self and identity and those intersections do not lend themselves to exact delineation.
Self as an operationalized term refers to the inner me, that which I know to be mine. There are multiple components to my-self and those components are essential parts of me that are not necessarily immediately recognizable to others, and also may not be recognizable regardless of the duration of time spent in the company of another. I recognize that it is possible to discuss the self as "selves" and I do not think that sort of interpretation is problematic; however, I have opted to make a distinction with consolidating that interpretation into the sole descriptor of "self" mostly in response to the possibility of the self being fractured by modern society, a fracturing also referred to as schizophrenia.
Archiving mostly refers to a practice of recording the deconstruction of self and/or identity by recording. An example would be the text that is this written form but that is certainly not the only possibility for archiving the deconstruction of self and/or identity. One could easily record such a phenomenon by utilizing a video camera or an audio capturing device but for this task, text is the format being used to communicate. It is important to recognize that the written form of text is likely less accurate in its representation than would be text presented as a video format.
Ontological excavation is a process by which experience attributed either to the self or identity is analyzed and deconstructed, often simultaneously, in an effort to interpret and then (re)present the origin of such experience.
Epistemological dissection is a process by which knowledge attributed either to the self or identity is analyzed and deconstructed, often simultaneously, in an effort to interpret and then (re)present the origin of such knowledge.
A plateau of meaning is a space where understanding has leveled; an awareness of a particular term or idea or phenomenon that is localized so that one may rest from such a vantage point before leaving again in the journey to make meaning with other terms, ideas, or phenomena. A plateau of meaning as an operationalized term is descriptive, not definitive. These spaces can also be points of connection similar to an airport and it is possible to both arrive at and depart from such space.
So where all of this begins becomes a signifier for what may be described as an origin but only so long as such an understanding is contextualized by the recognition that an origin is simply a place where the act of meaning-making (or ‘learning’) departs from and may also, at a different time, arrive to. Whether there is a single origin for understanding is not the task. What this writing explores is how a point of origin can be both a place of departure and arrival as well as place where both self and identity are impacted by knowledge and experience. Questions that arise from this interest included queries about the origins and formation of both self/identity and knowledge/experience, where self/identity and knowledge/experience might intersect and where they might diverge, and whether self/identity and knowledge/experience are mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive, or a combination thereof.
This kind of consideration is contingent with an awareness that the positionality of such a representation can be as influential to another’s understanding as the content of the representation may actually be. It is also considerate of my deliberation as to how such a knowledge derived from my experience may also be interpreted as an extension of my "self."
I think that is probably enough discussion for now about the complications of where all this should begin and I would offer that we have moved away from such a point of inquiry and that this kind of movement again symbolizes a way in which we connect with one another, with the world, and with the meaning we make from these moments of connection.
This introduction is also problematic because it partially betrays the effort that I have made to author a text that does not necessarily need to be read in a particular order. I think that such an effort could be appropriately described as ‘emergent’ or ‘postmodern’ or ‘autoethnographic’ as these terms are not fixed with a universal definition but are instead more appropriately described as ‘plateaus of meaning’ (and more discussion of that term is found later here in the introduction). In other words, all three terms are simply indicators of what ‘Grey” may be but are in no way limitations that settle what grey is, or how grey should be interpreted, or what the significance of grey may be.
|