What is it like to live without labels?

[cheesedip1]

I am wondering what it would be like to live without labels?

(This doesn't necessarily have to mean EVERYTHING, just certain things that don't matter as much.)

Any thoughts?

[Angela]

I prefer it, because I hate how they scratch the back of my neck.

[BillyTheAdult]

Amen to that, luckily tagless shirts are gradually becoming the norm.

[gnostic]

when i stop being a pain in the arse red headed step child, i'll let u know what is your main point? like, race labels, or social status labels, or what are u digging at?

[cheesedip1]

Basically, I'm wondering would it would be like to stop using labels:

(Putting ppl in a box and calling them "friend" "girlfriend" "family", "idiot" "cool dude" etc.)

I think it would be unsettling for me.



--If you want to get the gist of what I'm saying, read this article that Steve wrote about label-free relationships.

Intimacy Abundance and Label-Free Relationships


UPDATE: I think labels , at some level, just cause more problems. When I was younger, people would either assume you were an religious person, or an atheist. The reason I thought that was lame tho, was because in reality, both labels were too narrow and limiting. Sometimes labels just aren't descriptive enough. In reality, there are no labels. Labeling is a thing we humans do, it has nothing to do with divinity.

I'm not saying all labels are wrong. What I am saying is, I should just start seeing people as people, instead of "idiot" or "smart person"; "PD spiritual person/guru" or "unelightened moron". Now, of course, maybe this just has to do with judgement. If I see people who have negative qualities, I try to not be best friends with them because I need supportive people in my life; yet at the same time, it would be wise for me not to judge them and to just accept them as they are.

I've noticed that in the past, I used to hate being labeled by other people. But the thing was, I was labeling others in my mind.

[Rimuel]

Labels are objects of convenience. Like money, they provide an easy way to get something done.

But they do not work well with things that have many shades of grey. Indeed, in your example of "religious"or "atheist", labels tempt people to treat continuous, multi-variate concepts as discrete, uni-variate concepts. It is in these situations where labels should be either relinquished or loosened in favour of a more descriptive utility.

Labels work well with discrete, uni-variate concepts. For example:

"Hot" and "cold"
"Up" and "down"
"Rich" and "poor" (assuming the type of prosperity is defined)

EDIT: Forgot to answer the question. Living without labels will allow you to gain a more holistic (albeit less efficient) perspective of people.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Rimuel

Labels work well with discrete, uni-variate concepts. For example:

"Hot" and "cold"
"Up" and "down"
"Rich" and "poor" .

None of the above are really discrete, uni-variety concepts.

[Rimuel]

When the context is clearly defined, it can be discrete.

Understand that virtually everything can be made continuous. It is only through careful definition that entities can remain discrete.

If you want to make everything continuous, then we should probably throw away most of the labels, or at least stop labelling people.

Mathematically, in a continuous distribution we can usually introduce "cut-off" points, where we say that beyond that cut-off point something that is cold becomes hot. It is still quite tricky with people because people do not submit readily to quantitative measurements.

EDIT: An added difficulty arises where people derive different definitions about a label due to inductive reasoning.

EDIT 2: After some introspection, I concluded that it is indeed difficult to pin down discrete concepts. Acting is right; those dichotomies aren't really dichotomies.

[ButterflyWoman]

It's disorienting, and it's impossible to communicate with other people.

I've experienced the whole "existential crisis" thing where reality kind of falls to bits and you realise that nothing is what it appears to be and you see all the labels for what they are, even down to the most basic level. It's a life changing thing to see and experience that, but in that state, when you can't remember words or labels, etc., it becomes very difficult to communicate.

I think this is why things like ashrams and contemplative monasteries evolved, where you can go to let your reality fall apart and still have food and shelter and be safe until things sort themselves out and you learn to navigate and communicate again (or by different means, or from different perspectives; whatever).

It also explains the habit of mystics to become hermits. You live as basically as possible, where you don't have to communicate or get along with other people or navigate the material world in any but the most basic of ways.

[Rimuel]

Labels can also be very misleading, which leads to inaccuracies and incongruencies in our perception of people.

Example 1:

One job advertisement states that the person should be "detail-oriented". Another ad demands a more "big-picture oriented" person. This is a problem because the two options are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

For me, I am more "big-picture oriented", but I am also very "detail-oriented". I am known to be a hair-splitter. For me it more of which comes first. I need to see the big picture first, and then I will fondle with the details. When dealing with the second part I am as meticulous as can be.

Example 2:

Psychometric tests ask you whether you prefer "abstract" or "concrete" details. In this case the distinction between abstract and concrete is usually not very clear. Is the color red an abstract entity? But we can see it, so it can be considered concrete, no?

Maybe it's just me who can't grasp the distinction, but I think dichotomous labels such as these sometimes have unclear meanings, and it's best to either always refine the meaning so that others know exactly what you're talking about before labelling people with the labels, or to avoid it in such situations. A more descriptive alternative may be more clearly understood.


When we label people as an -insert adjective here- person, and he proves us wrong, we can sometimes feel that feeling of not "knowing" who a person really is.

Yet labels have practical value; it shortens the number of words we need to describe people, which smoothens face-to-face conversations. It's easy to remember. It's readily applicable to any human.

Hence care needs to be taken before we decide to use a cookie-cutter phrase for describing a person's identity.

[ChrisGinsburg]

It's a lot like having memory problems. I'm always asking my girlfriend what that thing is I eat cereal with and if she can grab me one.

[wolfgang]

did cavemen live without labels?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

did cavemen live without labels?

Even they had an elaborate system of "ug's".

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Even they had an elaborate system of "ug's".

it must be that labels are a way to point at something else and call that not part of you. so those cavemen were pointing at deer and saying ug in a certain way to label it as "food". perhaps.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

it must be that labels are a way to point at something else and call that not part of you. so those cavemen were pointing at deer and saying ug in a certain way to label it as "food". perhaps.

Yes. Labels themselves are not actually a problem. It is the belief that the label is inherently true and unquestionable. Duality IS appearing and knowing the difference between a car and a toothbrush can be helpful if you're a car salesman trying to communicate. Similarly, using the word 'I' is also useful but becomes very problematic when taken to be unquestionably and ultimately true as in "I am this body/mind which appears separate from 'you'"