>>2936who are you, this comment feels like something i'd write but i dont remember writing it
wait fuck nvm your conclution isnt dialectical enough. good try comr8
to fix my post make these edits: The new identity you take on cant just be another particular identity, but one which rises above all identities by explicitly embracing progress/negation/surpassing. Without that you fall into a stupid loop, where you have a solid identity, you can negate it if you want, but only to take on another identity. This is true in some ways but it's not so futile - while yes in order to function you need some positive identity (or values, coordinates, etc. to identify with), this identity doesnt have to resemble the old one, or any unexamined identity. It can and should be fundamentally different, so that rather than staying fixed and tribal, it's expansive and universal, self-overcoming without having to accept some outside identity over and over, or being stuck (as you said) in the madness of pure negation.
Also interestingly, it seems like many schizophrenics probably don't even go all the way to self-negation, but hold on to both - the progressive and regressive directions, and make themselves really crazy by not just progressing the thought and accepting negation wholesale. (just from my reading of R. D. Laing and other shit :P)