I've taken some time before responding here as I've been working like crazy the past week and didn't have the capacity to really focus on this as it deserves. Here are my thoughts:
1: Temporal Identity is still very weakly defined. That isn't all your fault, as the general use of identity is very poorly defined, but it does mean that it will not bear any analytical weight. You use it to say things like identity defines interests, but do not go into what defines identity and what doesn't. For example, former President Biden had said that blacks who did not vote for him were not black. (Or something to that effect.) Is that a coherent sentence? If we assume that identity drives interests, and black is an identity, then it is at least a coherent statement to say "All people whose identity is black have an interest in voting for Biden, thus if you do not vote for Biden you must not have a black identity." Coherent, but obviously stupid, so the contradiction must be in the use of identity. However, it isn't clear why given your definition.
2: Do interests define identity, or does identity define interests?
3: You seem to be waffling again between cosmic identity being fixed and cosmic identity being variable over time. That seems like a very important question to have a fixed answer to.
4: What does "the extent to which a given temporal identity is true, accurate, and/or sound" mean, and how does one tell if a temporal identity is true, accurate or sound? How is this being judged, on what aspects?
I think perhaps your description might benefit from some concrete examples of just what you have in mind as "identities" are and what they are not. Especially as it moves to the group level these are critical because your arguments are putting a huge amount of weight on something largely undefined. You aren't alone in that mistake, the Leftist identitarians do exactly the same thing, but that isn't really a good move to emulate; they are wrong about just about everything.
Intereatingly, this seems to echo the mystical kabbalistic "structure" of the soul. With the "temporal identity" correspponding to the lower levels of the soul as it manifests itself in this material world; while the "cosmic identity" corresponds to the higher levels of the soul, and eventually its connection with its Source.
Alternatively, I am just trying to decypher your meaning in terms which are more familiar to me.
I've taken some time before responding here as I've been working like crazy the past week and didn't have the capacity to really focus on this as it deserves. Here are my thoughts:
1: Temporal Identity is still very weakly defined. That isn't all your fault, as the general use of identity is very poorly defined, but it does mean that it will not bear any analytical weight. You use it to say things like identity defines interests, but do not go into what defines identity and what doesn't. For example, former President Biden had said that blacks who did not vote for him were not black. (Or something to that effect.) Is that a coherent sentence? If we assume that identity drives interests, and black is an identity, then it is at least a coherent statement to say "All people whose identity is black have an interest in voting for Biden, thus if you do not vote for Biden you must not have a black identity." Coherent, but obviously stupid, so the contradiction must be in the use of identity. However, it isn't clear why given your definition.
2: Do interests define identity, or does identity define interests?
3: You seem to be waffling again between cosmic identity being fixed and cosmic identity being variable over time. That seems like a very important question to have a fixed answer to.
4: What does "the extent to which a given temporal identity is true, accurate, and/or sound" mean, and how does one tell if a temporal identity is true, accurate or sound? How is this being judged, on what aspects?
I think perhaps your description might benefit from some concrete examples of just what you have in mind as "identities" are and what they are not. Especially as it moves to the group level these are critical because your arguments are putting a huge amount of weight on something largely undefined. You aren't alone in that mistake, the Leftist identitarians do exactly the same thing, but that isn't really a good move to emulate; they are wrong about just about everything.
Intereatingly, this seems to echo the mystical kabbalistic "structure" of the soul. With the "temporal identity" correspponding to the lower levels of the soul as it manifests itself in this material world; while the "cosmic identity" corresponds to the higher levels of the soul, and eventually its connection with its Source.
Alternatively, I am just trying to decypher your meaning in terms which are more familiar to me.