Monosemic Allegory

As we know, Persona is some sort of an “intermediator”, between personality and social environment. In the real world, this intermediary exists in two parallel planes as two parallel entities. There is a “Private persona” and there’s also a “Public persona”. However, in the world of social networks, virtual relationships, fabricated idols and hyperrealism, clear boundaries between those two are abolished under a conditional superiority of the second one. The public persona has become so dominant that the private persona began to disappear. It started breaking down and turning pale under the clear influence and ambitions of the public one.

Here we come to the twofold problem:

1) The problem of the disappearance of a set of personal characteristics – loss of identity

2) complete bondage to a global model (a reference to the “ego in the mirror” phenomenon)

 The problem of this public persona is very simple, it is a problem of its artificiality. Persona, as a healthy part of human consciousness and a necessary part of modern civilization. It should not be an inherited suggestion of the distorted noise of the global image, but a bi-product of our own developed ethical systems. It arises as a consequence, not as a romanticized fantasy in advance.

In order to explain the existence of the public persona most descriptively, we will use diagrams as they will most-illustratively explain previous assertions. We will also do our best to explain how it comes to these “isolated fragmented continent” groups, for which we are certain to stand high in the value system of our environment. We will try to explain how these groups expand, and how they suggest new sets with whom they create a monochrome collage of a public artificial identity.

Every planned design starts with the central element. This element occupies the central space on the map of our persona. In the case of public persona, a central element would be one that is through the elimination or selection, selected as the most valuable one. The element is constructed of clearly defined views/attitudes (not opinions) and exists as a group of them. This group has a clear geometric form in its nature and as such, it is representative of its solidity, transparency and focus, but also of its closure (first didascaly).

Given that the idea of ​​a closed set of attitudes is unacceptable according to the social conventions of today’s neoliberal philosophy, and the idea of ​​the set is to be the exponent of such a philosophy, the set is expanded in those parts where it is the weakest. These critical points are those in which one attitude builds on another, while they stand in opposite directions. (figure 1)

Reasons behind the upgrades in these particular points, in addition to the mentioned above, are the following:

Concealing its own weaknesses, ie the inability to link two opposing ideas, and the group of attitudes must be unambiguous.

The tendency for the expansion of our own views as a new set of arguments that serve and demonstrate that the initial element is accurate.

With each following, step Persona REDUCTIVELY GROWS. Attitudes create a complicated picture of simplification and repetition, and so they create their own ideogram of mystified simplicity. Their relationship (attitudes)  is easily noticeable in their simplistic and rhythmically articulated algorithm. This connection continues to the final borders and designs the picture of this great monosemic allegory (The Second Didascaly).

Signup for our Newsletter