Just having some fun......
I don't think it would be fun or interesting to be human without others, so I would opt that authenticity is dependent on societal interaction. Sort've a version of (Moore's or Graham's?) Law that a network's value is the square of its participants. The more participants in a network, the more worthwhile the individual product (think of a telephone...having one is useless...two is better...1 million is even greater). Therefore, it seems a relevant analogy.
I also think to be human requires community interaction. However, despite my response to these two questions, one has to remember that WITHOUT the individual, the network is impossible. That places the power of the network NOT IN THE NETWORK ITSELF, but in the individual participants. Why? Because as much as joining further EMPOWERS the network, refusing to join (or opting out) empowers the individual in many circumstances, while diminishing the network in ALL circumstances.
I think identity hinges on remembrance. If you don't have a memory of actions/things, you can'd define who or what you are. Think of an Alzheimer's patient. While they have an "identity" to close friends and loved ones, that identity is primarily based on remembrance of who they were. Similarly, who they ARE is quite different from who they were prior to being stricken. As such, their identities are radically different.
The last 2 questions, I think are pushing the limits of meaning, so I will decline the opportunity to answer them. I don't think they have validity (but that's me...others may disagree), even as simple questions. |
