A Hoka does not play but lives his adopted role. On the one hand, he does not become confused about identity but, on the other hand:
"'...his new personality becomes the true one...'" (p. 17)
To adopt a fictional personality so thoroughly that it becomes the true personality is not to become confused about identity? Maybe not for the Hoka who have evolved to become socially and psychologically adaptable.
Each of us is the person s/he is because we have been told since birth that we have a particular name, speak a certain language, live in one country, not in another etc. We cannot adopt another role as readily as the Hoka. But our nationalities are fictions, nevertheless. We could have been switched at birth and brought up in entirely different human cultures. Each of us is really the universe conscious of itself at a particular place and time. Let us realize that.
2 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I recall Hokas being described as both very intelligent and having protean, very ACTIVE imaginations. Which makes me think this eagerness or ability of theirs to BECOME any role that captures their fancy is also an integral part of what they are as Hokas.
And I don't think nations, esp. old, long established ones like the UK, the US, Spain, France, etc., are mere fictions. Differences of language, history, cultures, faiths, etc., will make for nations which are certainly not fictions!
Sean
In the novels of Lois M. Bujold, Cordelia Naismith moves to Barrayar with a very different culture from her home world. She initially sees the governmental system as a sort of collective delusion. Decades later she sees it as a sort of collective creation.
Abstractions like nations, money, governmental systems etc, are such collective creations rather than fictions.
Post a Comment