I say this is my face. I'm told it's not.

[joesteph]

Recently I had a hair cut and the lady cut it too short . . . This is very disconcerting to my sister . . . [W]earing it differently I am no longer "me".

My boys are 8 yrs. old. If I shave my beard, will they still see Daddy, or will I not be "me" to them, just as I feel that I won't be "me" to myself?

[JiuJitsuNation]

Does the beard define you...OR...does your face define you?

I feel that the beard is an integral part of my face; its absence would make it so that it is not my face any longer, but an "altered" one.

I agree with this on many levels. I also can see in a Buddhist sort of way the flip side. To to the world as we know it and see it and recognize it. This is my face.

[joesteph]

I also can see in a Buddhist sort of way the flip side. To to the world as we know it and see it and recognize it. This is my face.

And how would the world recognize me if I don't recognize me? Do I even unconsciously, likely subtly, act a certain way because of the appearance of my face, so that if it were altered, I would no longer have "my" face, no longer feel I am "me," and begin to act differently?

[tonydee]

I think it's all psycho babble and doesn't matter at all.

My point when I discuss this with my students is that it matters to me.

Might throw people off at first if you change something, but they'll get used to it.

It would throw me off, because my face would be "gone." If I get used to it, I'm getting used to a "different" face, not my "real" one. The beard, to me, doesn't mask my face; it isn't a mask at all. Without it, my face would be incomplete.

From a Buddhist perspective, this is classic attachment and aversion. What you're emotionally bound to is not the beard itself, but the perception that you believe it gives people of you, the comfort that comes with that expectation. What you're afraid of is having to cope with a change in the way people react to you. I say this not knowing how sincerely you feel these things, and how much it's for arguments sake, but that would be my reading. It'd probably do you good to shave, just for an experience, even if you immediately let it grow back .

Cheers,

Tony

[joesteph]

What you're emotionally bound to is not the beard itself, but the perception that you believe it gives people of you . . .

Actually, no. It's the perception I have of myself, that this is my face.

What you're afraid of is having to cope with a change in the way people react to you.

No fear at all regarding adults and students. (The only concern would be my children, but they should be off-limits in this discussion; besides, I'd already had the beard for eleven years straight before they were born.) I did say in the OP that I'd had it on-and-off for years, then kept it. That would be from when I was nineteen to when I kept it permanently at age thirty-eight. People during that time saw me with and without it. It was old hat to have/not have it during that time.

It'd probably do you good to shave, just for an experience, even if you immediately let it grow back .

I have to have a legitimate reason to alter my face from what it truly is to me. Shaving for the sake of repeating an experience I did for nearly two decades wouldn't be legitimate to me. I said that this is my face, while nearly every student said my face was beneath the beard.

[Jeffrey]

I have a full beard, something I grew on-and-off from my college years until 1990, when I kept it. There are photos of me with my boys in the KF Photo Album, mostly under Dojo photos.

I teach psychology on the high school level in an all-girls academy. As the periods are so long (80 minutes; "block" scheduling), I allow a tangental discussion, just to give a break. In both my psychology classes this past school year, one of the discussions was my face--and beard.

I was told by the most active participants that my face was the one beneath the beard; my face, to them, had a beard, not that my face is one with a beard as an integral part. I countered that this is my face; without the beard, it wouldn't be my face. It hinged on whether my beard is a genuine part of my face or an appearance factor only, indispensible or not to be my "true" face.

Only one student out of two classes spoke to say that if this is what I believe my face to be, then this is my face.

What do you think?

One could have the same discussions regarding the hair on our heads. Does that not define who we are to a certian degree? Outward apperances often lead others to judge who we are. I prefer to disregard apperance and get to know the person inside. It is that person that is a genuine part of who we all are. Not the face or beard.

And that is my 2 cents.

[isshinryu5toforever]

What you're emotionally bound to is not the beard itself, but the perception that you believe it gives people of you . . .

Actually, no. It's the perception I have of myself, that this is my face.

What you're afraid of is having to cope with a change in the way people react to you.

No fear at all regarding adults and students. (The only concern would be my children, but they should be off-limits in this discussion; besides, I'd already had the beard for eleven years straight before they were born.) I did say in the OP that I'd had it on-and-off for years, then kept it. That would be from when I was nineteen to when I kept it permanently at age thirty-eight. People during that time saw me with and without it. It was old hat to have/not have it during that time.

It'd probably do you good to shave, just for an experience, even if you immediately let it grow back .

I have to have a legitimate reason to alter my face from what it truly is to me. Shaving for the sake of repeating an experience I did for nearly two decades wouldn't be legitimate to me. I said that this is my face, while nearly every student said my face was beneath the beard.

Tony is speaking from a Buddhist standpoint. Anything you view as real in samsara (the world) is just an attachment. It's fear-based attachment, and an unwillingness to admit that everything around you is false. The world in-fact does not exist, therefore all the discussion of alteration of your appearance doesn't matter. Any emotion attached to what your face is doesn't matter, because it doesn't exist. These are two schools of philosophy that have trouble co-existing. Western philosophy generally tries to figure out what life is about, why there is difference in man, and they ponder the small things that make us who we are. Buddhist philosophy tells us that nothing around us exists, and it's all an emotional attachment that keeps us from being truly enlightened. Therefore, any discussions about reality are moot, and are just a product of our fear of the truth (enlightenment).

[joesteph]

One could have the same discussions regarding the hair on our heads. Does that not define who we are to a certian degree? Outward apperances often lead others to judge who we are.

It is true that we could have this discussion about the hair on our heads, but it was about my face, and that to most of the class, the beard was seen as something one may change matter-of-factly, just as the girls (it's an all-girls academy) change their hair color so often; but to me, it is an integral part of me, not something that can be changed matter-of-factly without me "losing" my actual face. It's not something I hinged on regarding being judged by others, but in self-recognition--my face.

[joesteph]

Tony is speaking from a Buddhist standpoint. Anything you view as real in samsara (the world) is just an attachment.

But the class is a psychology class, and a religious belief was not the discussion. It was whether this is my face, with its skin, nose, eyes, teeth, and beard, or that the beard can be dispensed with as not integral like the skin, nose, etc., that my face is covered by a beard, is beneath a beard, even hidden by a beard. I maintained that what is there is my face, and that includes the beard as my face.

It's fear-based attachment, and an unwillingness to admit that everything around you is false. The world in-fact does not exist, therefore all the discussion of alteration of your appearance doesn't matter.

This can be seen as Buddhist religious belief, and even a philosophical construct going back to Plato and the Forms, but it isn't the psychological discussion of whether I am mentally correct when I say "This is my face."

Any emotion attached to what your face is doesn't matter, because it doesn't exist.

It matters to me, and do you look at your face in the mirror in the morning and tell yourself that it doesn't exist? If so, perhaps it's based on a religious belief, but that's not the discussion. My face exists; I venture to say that the overwhelming number of members of Karate Forums believe their faces exist; Buddhist religious beliefs are, at best, tangental to "I say this is my face. I'm told it's not."

[isshinryu5toforever]

Anyone who hasn't received transmission in Buddhism isn't part of the faith, and I haven't. I have simply studied the philosophy behind it. There is a philosophy in it even if it's tied to a religion. A clarification seemed to be needed, especially because Eastern and Western philosophies do have trouble co-existing based on societal ideas and constructs. Buddhism is as much philosophy as it is religion. Someone else brought in the idea of Buddhism, I was simply trying to clarify where the idea comes from. Thus it wasn't tangential, it was in direct response to a point brought up prior by another poster.

If you notice, I responded to this post earlier from my own point of view. Maybe it would help if you actually told us whose philosophical idea you are using for the discussion.