Does this make any sense? Moreover, is it promising as a praxis? I'm trying to write this theory as a list of parallel strings, each one reseting and taking a different aim. I'd like to have the bulk of it be accessible to as many people as possible, but I might have to resort to more difficult explanations for the more difficult strings.
One way to conceptualize your identity is as a cluster of beliefs. These beliefs can be expressed as theses, as assertions that take positions. These positions need not align in perfect harmony to form an identity, which is paradoxical, seeing as identity implies a sameness-with-oneself. So long as they express something crucial, something that is verified by your gut, they have a place in the cluster. This cluster, expressed as a list of beliefs, can be refined and clarified to no limit. Once refined enough, which is another gut decision, each belief can be evaluated and interrogated. This evaluation process can, on one hand, serve to reinforce your identity, to patch up some of the porous walls. On the other hand, this evaluation process can serve to perpetually destabilize your beliefs, and, by extension, constantly redefine your identity. This movement of your identity can, in principle, be steered. Steered where? From one ideological territory to another. For what purpose? Building bridges. Building bridges how? By mapping out, through transcribing the development of your beliefs, how you got from one set of beliefs to another, from one identity to another. This mapping out of beliefs, which we may perhaps call ismography, can function as word-bridges between ideologies, between worlds.