Dunno. But my pseudonym here sometimes feels like a ‘truer’ name. I was taught (though I don’t really know the truth of the matter) that native Americans take an adult name after a vision quest. That, and this by TS Eliot, are the only things I can relate it to:

*

The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, or George or Bill Bailey -
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter -
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum -
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover -
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.

*

(The ‘trait of a psycopath’ comment was directed at Brooke’s earlier words, ‘… oh, the fun you can have… You are freed up to play around with dynamics of interaction that everyone else is just blindly reacting to.’)

But wait, so our *actual names* are already pseudonyms to begin with. Why would we even need another ever?

It’s not so much a matter of whether or not the name used is a pseudonym, it’s a matter of whether or not it better serves one’s purposes to use just one name, or more than one. All pros and cons considered, for me there are more advantages (at least for the time being) to having more than one. That might not be true for everyone. I just find there to be less hassles and more room for creativity this way. But I’m probably weird.

My most important work is done under a pseudonym, which like you say allows a certain detachment from how others perceive ‘that’ character.

But wait, so our *actual names* are already pseudonyms to begin with. Why would we even need another ever?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how I wish I had started publishing under a pseudonym, which would make that whole disconnect much easier to take.

My most important work is done under a pseudonym, which like you say allows a certain detachment from how others perceive ‘that’ character. I find it especially useful for the way it both protects the ego from the work, and the work from the ego. It allows the ego to relax and let the true self do it’s thing more easily, because no mistakes or criticisms are going to come back to bite it, directly. It also disallows the ego from inappropriately exploiting any positive attention the work receives, or from becoming too self-conscious in the future as a result of that attention.

Meanwhile the ‘character’ I play as under my ‘own’ name (chosen by my ‘parents’ actually, so is it more, or less, my ‘own’ than one I’ve chosen for myself?)… is actually less revealing of who I really am, and more me putting on a show, than that which I express through the above-mentioned alter ego with the different name.

So which is more the ‘real’ me? Well, each is a different aspect of me with different purposes and priorities, that’s all. It’s the old ‘both and neither’ answer I guess. I don’t know… Brooke doesn’t like to think about these things that her alter ego tries to get her to think about all the time. Brooke just wants to ROCK.

This idea of not having any fixed point to fall back to, just playing with other people, sounds a bit like the trait of a psychopath.

Are you (your character) saying that I (my character) was suggesting that?

Hopefully you come to the realization that you have been playing a role all along, because once aware of that, oh, the fun you can have… You are freed up to play around with dynamics of interaction that everyone else is just blindly reacting to.

Exactly–the question isn’t whether we’re role playing or not–it’s whether or not we are aware of it, and how much input we have in building the character we’re palying…

I deliberately chose the alias ’speedbird’ to comment on topics like this. It was a very very personal choice and seemed /really really important/. But I’m not sure exactly /why/. Just feels right, like I can think/see/feel more clearly.

Now, having tried to write for a while, I can describe the related experience of trying to get properly inside the head of a character I’ve invented, to feel/see/hear what he or she feels/sees/hears. There’s always ‘me’ in the background, but now and then I learn something from imagining myself as someone else and take it on board. Very interesting.

This idea of not having any fixed point to fall back to, just playing with other people, sounds a bit like the trait of a psychopath.

*

My own thoughts this morning are along the lines that each of us does indeed have a self distinct (to a degree) from the rest of the universe, and that virtue (a la Socrates) consists in the relations between that self and the rest of the universe. Though selves are the source of much trouble they are also required for this.

I agree with you that ‘playing as a character’ will make you more aware, both of yourself and of the dynamics going on around you. But it doesn’t really conflict with Tim’s point. That will disconnect you from your life (as you’ve known it) in certain ways; you will become more detached from the habitual role you’d been thinking of as yourself, but that’s not a negative.

Hopefully you come to the realization that you have been playing a role all along, because once aware of that, oh, the fun you can have… You are freed up to play around with dynamics of interaction that everyone else is just blindly reacting to. You don’t have to let on that you know; that’ll just annoy the piss out of people, like Tim’s little dialogue scenario illustrates. Why not, instead, just know what you know and put it to good use, consciously develop your character as you’d expect any good storywriter to do, and proceed to live an interesting, fruitful life.

“This is accomplished through the systematic practice of an exercise Gurdjieff (the author of this parable) called “self-observation”. It is a matter of creating a kind of inner separation so that one stands aside and watches the self interact with life.”

see The Horse and the Driver

The danger I see in the whole practice of “playing as your character” is of course that you may become hopelessly disconnected from your own life and begin feeling like a sort of ghost unable to connect with actual experience.

I think what is more likely is that you may become more self-aware, by observing yourself in this way without identifying with the “I” that is doing or thinking.

Andre’ Gregory spends the first 30 minutes talking about a drama commune he was part of for a few months where they would “improv” scenes — but the characters were “themselves”. Trippy stuff.

Somewhere I have some quotes from John Cassavetes about learning to play the part of yourself that you have been rehearsing and rehearsing your entire life up until that point. I’ll dig around.

It (somewhat crudely) points toward ways

Do you mean “it” as in this language game?

Then you could probably also start investing your different characters into objects and so forth, right?

if intentionally crafted Multiple Character (dis)Order isn’t crazy enough for you, conjure a different spirit to possess or tutor each character.