What I Have Deigned To Be Worthy of Pursuit in Life, Sort of (I'm Full of Shit)
One of the greatest either ironies or follies of life as a human being is that we invest an enormous amount of our time in trying to communicate the most complex and deepest aspects of our being (some may call it a soul, some the inner-self, et al), which is the single-most impossible task you could ever set in front of a thinking, reasoning creature. My personal theory, which I am sure is partial plagiarism of a group of other theories in philosophy mostly pertaining to existentialism, is that there is who you are, truly, and who you are, in communication. The latter version of the self is further divided by the fact that the appearance of this self is only partially responsible to yourself, and also the resultant of the filter of interpretation and perception that others apply to it. To paraphrase anime, which is in horrible taste for something that may or may not be intended to sound intelligent or thoughtful, there’s the “Shinji in Shinji’s head,” and the “Shinji’s in Rei’s head,” then the “Shinji in Asuka’s head,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It’s really quite a fascinating idea or topic, in my humble opinion.
What I find to be a great query set before us, as sentient beasts of primal urges and civilised tendency, is there a dividing factor between these two versions of the self? Is it possible to be unbalanced on the level of the soul-self? Since the secondary version of the self is merely a translation of the primary, true-self to language and communication, could one go so far as to say that it is irrelevant to what could be called universal truth, or does the act of communicating the self inadvertently alter what lies beneath, thus creating a circular relationship between these two selves? Is it a conscious or unconscious decision as to what parts of the self to communicate, or a mixture of both? When one is faced with the idea of denial of their self, does it matter, at all?
I wonder if the end result of the choices we make and the life we live the level of balance in which we keep the two selves. If certain series of events will lead one to be more consciously concerned with the true self versus being more wrapped up with trying to communicate the true self to others, then, inversely, can this conscious practice be altered, or is it too integral in the congealed personality of the individual. . . . Or, one may ask, is there really more than one self, or merely a singular self which is accompanied by multiple projections of that self? Where do the factors of lies and honesty come into the equation of being? This train of thought leads to a discussion of morality, though, which isn’t what I want, here.
Is it better to be more true to the self or to be skilled at conveying the truth of the self, I think, is the question. To focus inwardly on the actual, relevant self, and occasionally, if one is so compelled, share a product of the self with the rest of the world, seems to me, to be a better way of life, rather than to be worried about the kind of self that one is projecting to the rest of humanity and that image. It’s a private way of living, of course, and leads to an introverted nature, in the end; which, honestly, doesn’t bother me overly much. I would be content with introspection and quietness over a loud, cumbersome string of expression that may be wrong, later, but seems correct, or convenient, or desirable, at the time.
There is something to be said for social interaction, human contact, verbal conversation, but one can not forget that that something may not always necessarily be needed to be said, or is superior to what can be said about personal exploration, sensory deprivation, and isolated, peaceful, quaint solitude, not to mention the conversations of the mind with itself. It is easy to become confused with who you are because of how people are telling you who you are, based on their own perception of you. . . . Fuck that.
Adios.
What I find to be a great query set before us, as sentient beasts of primal urges and civilised tendency, is there a dividing factor between these two versions of the self? Is it possible to be unbalanced on the level of the soul-self? Since the secondary version of the self is merely a translation of the primary, true-self to language and communication, could one go so far as to say that it is irrelevant to what could be called universal truth, or does the act of communicating the self inadvertently alter what lies beneath, thus creating a circular relationship between these two selves? Is it a conscious or unconscious decision as to what parts of the self to communicate, or a mixture of both? When one is faced with the idea of denial of their self, does it matter, at all?
I wonder if the end result of the choices we make and the life we live the level of balance in which we keep the two selves. If certain series of events will lead one to be more consciously concerned with the true self versus being more wrapped up with trying to communicate the true self to others, then, inversely, can this conscious practice be altered, or is it too integral in the congealed personality of the individual. . . . Or, one may ask, is there really more than one self, or merely a singular self which is accompanied by multiple projections of that self? Where do the factors of lies and honesty come into the equation of being? This train of thought leads to a discussion of morality, though, which isn’t what I want, here.
Is it better to be more true to the self or to be skilled at conveying the truth of the self, I think, is the question. To focus inwardly on the actual, relevant self, and occasionally, if one is so compelled, share a product of the self with the rest of the world, seems to me, to be a better way of life, rather than to be worried about the kind of self that one is projecting to the rest of humanity and that image. It’s a private way of living, of course, and leads to an introverted nature, in the end; which, honestly, doesn’t bother me overly much. I would be content with introspection and quietness over a loud, cumbersome string of expression that may be wrong, later, but seems correct, or convenient, or desirable, at the time.
There is something to be said for social interaction, human contact, verbal conversation, but one can not forget that that something may not always necessarily be needed to be said, or is superior to what can be said about personal exploration, sensory deprivation, and isolated, peaceful, quaint solitude, not to mention the conversations of the mind with itself. It is easy to become confused with who you are because of how people are telling you who you are, based on their own perception of you. . . . Fuck that.
Adios.
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
5:43 PM
<< Home