Descartes was a man of his time. The great chain of being was still very much the order of ideas, and the phenomenal world was barely coming into view. This question is stated in terms just as stuck in its own time. It sounds like 'person' is a matter for corporate review, like a business proposal or 'prospectus'! How we present ourselves is not who we are, unless you mean some subtlety I'm missing. We make the same damn mistake over and over again, reading the ontological as the quantifier. There is no enumerator that 'is' anything. The metaphysical is the enumerator, the phenomenal the enumerated. But neither is complete in itself, nor in the other. The logic of quantification is vexed until, as its most rigorous term, it is lost the enumerator. That loss is not this one or that one, not a determination which one is which or an aggregation of unifying attributes (the monad). It is the act of that extremity of reason where the enumerator is lost to it. That act is what person is. The most extensive term of time is that rigor entailing that loss, but the act of that loss itself is the characterology (the dynamic of an unstable conviction) of that entailment. That is, the conceit of the logical comprehension of the quantifier, of inference by extension of antecedence, and therefore that time is completed only by extension, is most extensive entailing that most rigorous term the lost enumerator is. But the act itself, and what person is, is the moment of that loss. Moment that differs all extension, and is there the most comprehensive term. Person is not a corporate property, nor a private 'presentation'. Actually, as act, it is more like absence, absence that remains only as responsibility of the worth of its loss being recognized. A conviction of person as presence or presentation commits us to irresponsibility.

How to find One self? that is the question. If I may suggest: take a trip to Ulm and climb into a stove, reduce yourself to I and stay there until you grasp everything fully. And if Ulm is out of the question, then go down the river, to nature, to yourself, for the truth of everything including I or Oneself, yourself can be found there too. And if there is no river near by then try giving up everything you have and know and sit under a tree until I comes to you. And if there are no trees to sit under then follow the light, outside the gray areas of questions or doubts is the absolute, the promised land of One's true self. And if you can't see the light than feel and follow your heart, the heart rings true. Be true. I would suggest science but the speed of light might stand in your way. Then there is God, hmmm, One can find I there too unless you get lost in it.  Try mathematics, I can be found in an equation. As for Justice, I am at the center of her scale. And if all else fails then ask yourself what is the measure of you? The answer is truly immeasurable. I can be found in all of the above, in everything, in you. =    

Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern Schplenden Schlitter Crass Cren Bon Fried Digger Dingle Dangle Dongle Dungle Burstein von Knacker Trasher Apple Banger Horowitz Ticolensic Grander Knotty Spelltinkle Grandlich Grumblemeyer Spelter Wasser Kürstlich Himble Eisenbahnwagen Gutenabend Bitte einen Nürnburger Bratwürstel Gespurten mit Zweimache Luber Hundsfut Gumberaber Schönendanker Kalbsfleisch Mittelraucher von Hauptkopft of Ulm?

The people of Ulm are mathematicians. =

All of them? Always? If so, they competently use the sign '=' with the full implication of the unequal.

I'll opine that variability and multiplicity are just the ticket. Our interpersonal relationships are in frequent fluctuation because of the various and multiplicious scenarios we participate in almost daily. We present facades for each situation, responsibility and audience we encounter. It is this adaptability that best ensures our successes (or failures) as human beings because we can be, yea, must be different things to different people. But, well, Ken Taylor is Ken Taylor. He is interested in what makes us tick. And he has already suggested in this post the essence of what is being opined in these brief comments. We all have social identities we amend as our situational roles change. And each of us has a personal identity, known mostly to ourselves and to the occasional individual whom we trust. And to whom we are not beholden for a paycheck or some other creature comfort that we do not wish to live without. We are chameleons--and good at it. Well, during moments of success anyway.
Neuman

?Some people do what they love. Some do it by default. Some do it by
knowing. Some people do what they don?t love. Some do it by default.
Some do it by knowing. What if you had the ability to know and do
what you love?? 
As Socrates said "Know Thyself".
Stanley Tsiamoulis' words of wisdom.
 

It was Delphi, not Socrates. The oracle was warning us that interpretation can go disastrously wrong if the inquirer doesn't know who he is and what and why he is really seeking the word of the oracle. Socrates was told there that no one was wiser, but he spent his life proving that this only meant he knew nothing and knew that he knew nothing. Plato spent his career proving that this is more meaningful than all the pretenses to knowing ourselves and the world that we get up to, with more or less conviction.

A great part of the examination on the self,has concentrated on the significance of self-regard. In spite of the fact that this property of the self is of awesome centrality in comprehension the self, it might be addressed in the event that it is the most critical. This article will talk about the significance of self-presentation as one of the numerous properties of self.website

From being in your post, the most spirited act is still to think for you. Clothes mean nothing until someone lives in them. We must never confound classiness with condescension.  Chris Jericho y2j light Leather Jacket