I’ve been thinking, lately, about what characterizes one’s existence, about what constitutes personal identity. I guess it’s pretty clear that who I am now is not, in a variety of ways, who I must have been newly born in terms of cellular make-up or cognitive capabilities, which makes me wonder when, exactly, did I happen. And, even within memory my experiences have changed me in many ways physically and psychologically. If I’m not now who I was, who, I wonder, will I become? Think about those folks aboard the Starship Enterprise who enter the transporter room as Captain Picard or whoever and have their molecular structures disassembled. Can they really be who they were after reassembly?

I’ve been reading an intriguing sci-fi series by Richard K. Morgan who introduces the concept of ‘cortical stack’, which is a structure atop the spinal column, at the base of the brain containing one’s entire being: memory, personality, essentially whole identity. The idea is that if the body is damaged or destroyed the cortical stack can be transferred into an awaiting body or ‘sleeve’ so that an individual can resume existence in a new and viable physical skin, and as long as the cortical stack isn’t destroyed one can live forever. The idea, I suppose, is not dissimilar to the age old concept of immortal soul that will live on after physical extinction.

I guess I have to accept right now what I appear to myself to be, but I do relish the idea of becoming, which is certainly what will happen, whether or not an existence beyond the physical/psychological is in the offing.

I’ve been thinking how moral proprieties as expressed in popular culture have changed over the generations. Depending on one’s philosophical perspective decadence or enlightenment might be a fairly accurate one-word description, I guess. There have, of course, always been pockets of depraved immorality as well as societies of puritanical absolutes, but what has been found to be acceptable to the cultural mainstream has certainly been changing.

From the standpoint of artistic expression, eliminating taboos regarding visual representation and language usage has certainly been a positive when used to offer insights into the contemporary conundrum, to better express the complexities of daily existence.

But, unfortunately, there appears to be plenty of self-promoters out there who see advantages to be exploited; who use social media to avoid any sort of censorial control. The result being a kind of ugly downward spiral away from thoughtful beneficence and toward anything perceived as attention grabbing, shock value being particularly sought after.

I have to admit I have no solutions in mind to overcome this unfortunate situation other than to continue to live in my increasingly judgmental intuitive world, rejecting or admitting input as I see fit. I will optimistically watch for the occasional rays of enlightenment I know are out there.

There’s been a lot of news, lately, about the dissemination of ‘fake news’. Almost daily, it seems, there are reports of ersatz information being spread around, some of which is pretty incredible. Sometimes it’s reported, people will even take actions in response to these ‘fake news’ stories, which, I guess, must mean they can sometimes be pretty believable.

But now I learn that a pretty large percentage of the population distrusts news sources altogether, which makes me wonder, if the news sources are of dubious believability how do we determine what’s fake? And, if we can’t tell what’s fake how can we know what’s true? I guess truth becomes a matter of belief, which works pretty well, I suppose, when it comes to religious issues but maybe not so much when it involves hard facts.

As far as I’m concerned I’ve got this kind of intuitive scenario in my mind that I sort of fit new information in to, selecting and discarding as it suits my world view. My understanding of things may not always be entirely accurate but my method does give me temporary peace of mind.