Identity: still me, somehow

A barebones vectorial version of me stares back from the screen. The skin has dissolved into planes. Texture has gone. Pores, lines, scars, fatigue – all the small evidence that a face has passed through time – have been cleared away.

And yet I remain recognisable.

Apparently identity survives a surprising amount of deletion. Leave the distance between the eyes, the shape of the head, the angle of the gaze, the mouth held in its particular way, and something still remains of me. The self seems to persist not in any single feature but in the pattern connecting them.

The eyes haven’t surrendered completely to the geometry. They remain wet, detailed, almost photographic. The face has become data, but the eyes continue to witness.

Predictive called it a polygenic selfie. I meant polygonal, but the accidental word feels truer. A self assembled from many inheritances: biological, familial, cultural, military, poetic, technological, narrative. Each plane another code that has helped produce the person looking back.

What this image preserves is the geometry of identity. It contains just enough of me to circulate as an icon, an avatar, a digital double – but not enough to say what I’ve walked through as you might see through the scars and lines on my face.

---

“The geometry of identity” makes me think of the self not as a solid object, but as a shape produced by relationships: angles, distances, intersections, boundaries, centres of gravity.

We tend to talk about identity as though there is some essential thing buried inside us waiting to be uncovered. Who am I, really? As if beneath the roles, habits, memories, loyalties, wounds, ambitions and borrowed language there is a final indivisible point called me.

But perhaps identity is less like a point and more like a figure.

A polygon, maybe.

Each edge is a boundary: this I will accept, this I refuse, this belongs to me, this does not. Each vertex is a moment where different forces meet — parent and child, soldier and writer, lover and loner, past and possibility. Some angles are acute, places of tension where two incompatible selves press hard against each other. Others open outward, generous and expansive, allowing more of the world inside.

And the figure keeps changing.

Add one new point — a death, a love affair, a journey, a book, a betrayal, an illness, a revelation — and the entire geometry changes. Not just the new corner. Every relationship between the existing points shifts.

That feels important.

We imagine that change means replacing one self with another. But often nothing disappears. The coordinates simply move.

The child remains.

The young idealist remains.

The person who made the terrible decision remains.

The person who survived it remains.

The person you have not yet become is already exerting a strange gravitational pull from somewhere beyond the visible shape.

Maybe that is what becoming is: the continuous recalculation of the distances between our selves.

There is also something interesting about the centre.

In geometry, a centre can be calculated. But depending on the kind of shape, there may be different centres: centroid, circumcenter, incenter. The “middle” is not necessarily one thing.

Identity may work the same way.

Ask who I am at work and one centre appears.

Ask who I am alone at midnight and another.

Ask who I am with an old friend and suddenly a version of myself I haven’t inhabited for twenty years walks back into the room as though he never left.

Which one is the real centre?

Maybe the question itself is wrong.

Maybe there is no fixed centre.

Or perhaps the centre is not a personality at all.

Perhaps it is awareness — the empty coordinate system within which all these shapes keep forming.

That opens another possibility: perhaps we suffer when we mistake the current geometry for the territory itself.

“I am this kind of person.”

“I don’t do that.”

“I’ve always been like this.”

These statements harden temporary lines into walls.

We take yesterday’s coordinates and turn them into destiny.

But identity might be better understood as topology rather than architecture: less concerned with preserving a fixed shape and more concerned with what remains connected as the shape bends, stretches and transforms.

You can change careers.

Change countries.

Change beliefs.

Change lovers.

Change names.

Change almost every visible feature of your life.

And yet some continuity persists.

Something says:

Yes. Somehow, strangely, this is still me.

Perhaps identity resides in that continuity of relation rather than in any particular content.

Not the points themselves, but the pattern connecting them.

And then there are other people.

No geometry of identity is purely private because part of our shape exists in other people’s minds.

Your mother carries one version of you.

An old lover another.

A colleague another.

Your children another.

The internet another.

You yourself are carrying several obsolete versions.

There is no single Clay, or Ruth, or whoever, moving intact through the world. There is instead a distributed constellation of representations, overlapping but never identical.

Identity becomes almost cubist.

A face seen simultaneously from several directions.

And perhaps maturity is not finally deciding which face is true.

Perhaps it is developing the capacity to hold the multiplicity without demanding collapse.

I am this and this.

The disciplined person and the wanderer.

The rationalist and the mystic.

The independent self and the creature who longs to belong.

The person constructed by history and the person perpetually escaping it.

The geometry becomes richer as the contradictions accumulate.

A perfectly straight line, after all, has very little interior space.

Maybe that is why people who insist too fiercely on a single identity can sometimes feel strangely two-dimensional. The boundaries become immaculate. The labels become precise. The doctrine becomes internally consistent.

But nothing breathes.

A complex life produces irregular shapes.

Strange angles.

Open edges.

Unresolved intersections.

And perhaps that is where the room is.

There is another image here I like: identity as a shape drawn around absence.

A circle only exists because of the empty space it encloses.

Maybe the self works like that too.

We spend our lives drawing lines around something we can never quite see directly.

Values draw one line.

Memory another.

Desire another.

The body another.

Language another.

Other people another.

And gradually we begin to recognise the silhouette.

But the thing at the centre remains strangely silent.

Which might explain why every serious attempt to answer Who am I? eventually begins to dissolve.

You peel away the roles.

Not that.

The biography.

Not entirely that.

The body.

Changing constantly.

The beliefs.

Also changing.

The memories.

Unreliable.

The personality.

Context-dependent.

Eventually the question becomes almost geometric itself:

Where exactly is the boundary?

Where do I end and the world begin?

Perhaps the geometry of identity is therefore not a diagram of who we are.

It is the ongoing act of drawing and redrawing the line.

And freedom might begin when we realise the pencil is still in our hand.

---

If this post gave you something to carry into your day, consider supporting my work by buying me a coffee or making a monthly donation or subscribing (free) to the blog.