That is equally true :)
From this perspective you look at the “yourself”, as continuous process. The self changes constantly, and the definition of the self can be seen only in its entirety, rather than a single point in time. However, one could argue, that in the whole game of imitation and break away, adaptation and rebellion, there is a point when one starts to feel at home, even though still constantly evolving. The point of self imposed identity, born out of the whole of ones own life’s experience so far, and their analysis (conscious or not), at which one not merely mirrors, but becomes, and henceforth all further adaptation and mirroring are measured against this “blueprint”.

I think it depends on how you look at identity and if you consider definition as imprisonment or fulfillment and freedom. I still argue that in spite of the continuous change of the self, there is some point in time where a certain core develops, as every system needs certain amount of initial information to work with, and we don’t only consist of biology. So, a second “birth” is in my opinion inevitable, be it a short or long, or very long birth, or may it never come, which would be also a form of identity, but that is not what I initially meant making the comment to the poem.

However, even the comforting acceptance of what is already there, is a form of discovery and “becoming” in sense of becoming conscious of it. And one could argue both ways if something exists, if one is not conscious of it - objectively yes, but this does not help the one that is unaware of it. I guess we don’t disagree so much after all.

In any case, thanks for the counter argument and some food for thought. I enjoyed your take and, btw, don’t consider this question “solved” by any means, as I think that there is no one, objective answer, but just trying to explain my argument better. And, I still argue that one is anyone else, before one finds himself. :)

And tnx @thegaillery for your poem and for generating this discussion :)