Habits, fears, and ways of thinking that aren’t conducive to growth are shortcomings I’m always trying to eliminate, but only recently have I realized that if I don’t change, these issues will continue to work against me; looking back, it becomes obvious that growth took place after I was changed inside (after reading Plato’s Republic for instance). Intentionally trying to change can be difficult because it is easy to do what is natural and habitual – change means dealing with uncertainty and the unknown, which can be scary. Change can also be difficult because of expectations set by ourselves or others to dress, speak, or be creative in a certain way (to name just three); in this case, change means challenging the norm and possibly threatening the stability of our relationships. Ultimately though, growth means change: we cannot grow if we stay the same – if we want to grow, we need to change.

In regards to who the “we” refers to, it’s important that a distinction be made. Extrinsic identity includes your name, date of birth, gender, ethnicity, physical body and appearance, job title, what other people think of you, what you drink in the morning, whether or not you are a minimalist, etc…; it is the vehicle through which you interact with the world, but it doesn’t say much about who you really are – the nature of being human is beyond description and cannot possibly be summarized in a job title, major, or an “About Me” box on a social networking profile. Intrinsic identity is the true self – it cannot be put into words: it is the unique (because everyone is unique) intuition, voice, and vocabulary that is within all of us and the pilot that navigates our extrinsic identity. Intrinsic identity is natural: you don’t try to have one, you just do. Both forms of identity are always changing (in ways great and small) as a result of new experiences; this technically implies that there is no identity because identity is always changing, but that is a topic for another essay.

So we are always changing, but not all change is growth. Growth is a deep alteration of the intrinsic identity (hereafter termed “the self”). Sometimes it occurs almost instantly (when another person or an idea inspires you), but usually it is attained through practice of what is not already natural, and through questioning rather than affirming. Glenn Gould defines invention as the act of reaching out into the world of negation (that which something is not) – this applies just as much to people as it does to works of art: to grow, especially in regards to artistic voice and vocabulary, what is not natural needs to be practiced. Creativity and growing are the same in that they occur through dealing with uncertainty and the unknown, and not through relying on assurances to define and crystallize the self.

Self-definition (to define the self by previous efforts or current status, and to affirm what is known or natural) is an obstruction to growth – it sounds like: “That’s just how I am”, “I am the worst/best x in the y”, or “I have achieved this much only?/already!” (perhaps even “I don’t need to improve on that because everyone else does it that way”) – all of these are roadblocks to growth because they focus your thoughts on who you are and not on who you could be. Growth occurs through climbing, not plateau; steps as opposed to levels; action rather than current circumstances; direction and movement, not location; ambition, not honour; self-improvement as opposed to ego and “talent”; learning and reflecting, not knowledge; exploring, not acceptance; risk and uncertainty, not safety and comfort; “I need” rather than “I have”. Growth is about internal change and forward movement, not arrival – growth is forward movement. In another way, growth is also about needing less to move forward.

If self-definition is an obstacle to growth, then ego is certainly worth besieging. First, it’s important to re-emphasize that the self cannot be quantified: it is not “good” or “bad”, it just “is”, because it is only concerned with searching for what it values (and with questions more so than answers) — it never finishes the search and crystallizes into an ultimate or definable form; ego is not concerned with this mere existence. However, ego is concerned with forms of extrinsic identity (job title, what you drink in the morning, whether or not you are a minimalist, etc…). Does ego exist because much of our experiences are organized around ethnicity, maladies, societal class, grades, trophies, degrees, achievements, titles, and other forms of extrinsic identity? Is this labelling the cause of a hierarchy, and by extension, ego? Labels themselves are not egotistical – our [imagined] associations are what leads to the judgment of others and ourselves. Words with an intrinsic judgmental association (good, stupid, better, beautiful, genius, profound, etc…) rely on comparisons: once something is regarded as “good”, something else is automatically “bad”, and this what ego thrives on. On the other hand, words without an intrinsic judgmental association (artist, intellectual, black, etc…) are not harmful unless we add associations to make them any more than what they literally mean.

But there’s more to it than words: you can only have an ego if you believe you possess what you value; values are intrinsic whereas possession is extrinsic — this is to say that thinking in terms of possession (or arguably any form of extrinsic identity) is the red carpet upon which ego enters into your mind.

There’s a Buddhist teaching that speaks novels with one line:

Develop attention to impermanence so as to uproot the pride that says ‘I am.’

July 2010