j_moody: an interesting tangent would be to follow up a bit more on the "we are not... ourselves" bit. that has interesting implications, to my mind.

j_moody: there's a quote from somewhere in the transcript of a court case in which John Adams spoke (1700's or early 1800's I suppose) that was used in the Spielberg film "Amistad," where he says "Our individuality is not entirely our own." That's a different shading of this concept that might merit some thought. Are we, indeed, our own? There's also an introductory essay by Ursula K. LeGuin at the beginning of her book "A Fisherman of the Inland Sea" where she comments on the fact that "a great deal of contemporary fiction isn't a fiction of character." She goes on to say: "The end of the century isn't an age of individuality as the Elizabethan and Victorian ages were. Our stories, realistic or otherwise, with their unreliable narrators, dissolving points of view, multiple perceptions and perspectives, often don't have depth of character as their central value. Science fiction, with its tremendous freedom of metaphor, has sent many writers far ahead in this exploration beyond the confines of individuality-- Sherpas on the slopes of the postmodern." The idea of exploring the situation a character is in, and accepting that that situation will have an inexorable influence on the shape of their soul ("who they are") casts a doubtful light on the concept that "we are our own." Not that any of us have to conclude either way, but its worth thinking about. Also, this in no way is an argument against the idea that you seem to be presenting, namely that we are not reducible to any number of things that people try to reduce us to. We are more than that. I agree with that. There are just so many ways to explore these ideas.