“…I often think about the strangeness of the relational domains in which we have identities and interact, and, recently, it became more clear to me that there are a variety of potentially distinct ‘selves’ which we (I presume this is similar for many others) form and develop in relation to our understandings about the social contexts we are exposed to as well as imagine.

I have a self that is private, whose morals and ideals are private, and thus known only to myself. I also have one that is public, whose morals and ideals may vary from the private self, and was partly composed specifically for the purpose of satisfying my perceived expectations of some real or possible group of persons or ‘the public’ in general.

But I also have ‘theoretical’ selves, whose morals and ideals are composed for ‘possible situations’ in which I may find myself. Further, there are, within me, ‘selves’ that are largely imaginary or fantastic, heroic or nefarious, that occasionally vie for the attention or consideration of my conscious mind.

I suspect this is a relatively common situation for many people, whether or not they reflect upon it.

All of this is fascinating to me, and it seems that there are conflicts, internally, between these various aspects … some of which become actualized in contexts where the different domains of potential personal identity arise or collide in our direct experience.

I think it would be extremely rewarding to find a group with whom the somewhat secretive ‘personal self’ could be free to find expression without fear of condemnation… however unlikely this might be.

And It strikes me that this is part of why humans form and belong to various subcultures, some of which may act as screens upon which aspects of their privately held ideals and moralities which must otherwise be kept secret can either be relatively safely represented or at least hinted at…”

— infraheard