With the help of Jean-Paul Sartre and Leonard Cohen, this week I discovered that I am two different individuals: 1) I am the person I see myself to be as seen by me when no one is watching, and 2) I am the person I see myself to be as seen by me through the eyes of others. But which is the truer self? When no one is watching am I delusional because I am unsubstantiated, or am I more honest because I am not being judged? And is the reflected image I see in the eyes of others more accurate because it is a composite that likely dictates behavior and defines reality, or is this judgment not to be trusted because it is formulated from a need for cooperation that is driven (at least in part) by (a necessary and often productive) manipulation and deceit? These questions may be rhetorical; or I may come back to them later.
These two separate entities will never share space because once seen by even one other individual the walls of the blind have come down exposing one to the elements of public scrutiny. I am either watched, or not; there is no middle ground. Often, we are influenced by a fear of being watched, which (if examined closely) I believe is the same as being watched. Too often, we suppress our unwatched self to a point where we truly believe that our ‘watched’ self is all that matters. It would be sad to think that one could believe and behave as if their ‘unwatched’ self did not exist. It is also sad to think that one could feel or wish that their ‘watched’ self did not exist.
Please note: I do not intend for ‘watched’ to infer any kind of paranoid / big brother state of mind. By ‘watched’ I simply mean everyday human interaction, some of which may be confining or dictatorial, but much of which can be reflective of positive, illuminating, compassionate, and/or loving relationships with others including teachers, classmates, co-workers, mentors, acquaintances, friends, and family. For the sake of expediency and clarity, from this point forward I will refer to ‘unwatched’ as the unrevealed self, and I will refer to ‘watched’ as the interactive self.
These thoughts to this point help me to understand how / why I (at times) feel conflicted; and how / why I am able to lie to myself; and how / why I sometimes, (when talking to others), will say one thing while thinking something completely different. The inconsistency is (it appears) inevitable, because the interpretive perspective (interactive or unrevealed) is constantly in flux. If I were to make an educated guess, I believe we probably allow our interactive perspective to have a greater influence on our unrevealed perspective, but I wonder how much of that impact is constructive. Because there is no middle ground the flux of each perspective must be distinct and separate, yet there should be a healthy interplay. I believe it to be (both personally and culturally) healthy (and in many circumstances, necessary) to avoid excessive revelation and to thoughtfully consider potential consequences before speaking and/or acting. But I also believe it to be healthy to acknowledge extremes and recognize socially appropriate behavior for what it is and for the purpose it serves. And I believe it to be healthy if these dynamic perspectives are simultaneous and reciprocal.
So, if I am a single embodiment of two different individuals that will (and should) always remain distinct and separate, and if I can define one of those two individuals as an affiliation of connected and reflected images – (a closed loop of interactive understanding), then could this mean that there is a universal consciousness AND there is individual conation. Do I (as two separate entities) outnumber all of Humanity? The answer appears to be ‘Yes’ unless (as I asked in the first paragraph) my unrevealed perspective is delusional. This begets the question, if I (or one of me) is not delusional, then how does this play into free will? If it is my unrevealed self that is capable of individualism, then how is free will possible when it cannot be acted upon? It appears (again, if I am not delusional) that unadulterated free will is only possible through unrevealed thought; which seems (at first glance) to defeat the purpose. But here is where I would argue that a free flow reciprocity between the unrevealed self and the interactive self will influence choices which in some circumstance approximates and/or can be interpreted as free will. This in turn strongly encourages a deeper exploration of the unrevealed self.
I do not believe I am delusional. I believe acknowledgment, recognition, and thoughtful consideration of the unrevealed self is more honest. I believe that the reflected image I see in the eyes of others is valid and (as far as ‘perception is reality’) accurate. I believe perceptions can and should change; frequently. I believe the ‘truer self’ is a synthesis of the interactive self and the unrevealed self; and I believe that each synthesis will create a new unrevealed self and a new interactive self thus leading to a new synthesis.
I have faith that I outnumber all of Humanity AND I know for a fact that I am but a tiny fraction of all of Humanity. Now by proposing this juxtaposition of faith and fact I have added depth to an active unrevealed self by recognizing it as an ever-evolving denouement of faith, and I have acknowledged the volitional interactive self as a perceptive fact. Put more simply, the interactive self must be fact because perception is reality, and the unrevealed self must be faith because I will never know as it will remain forever unsubstantiated. Some may argue that others are able to intuit my character / unrevealed self and to an extent this is possible, but regardless it remains ‘faith’ as there is still and always will be a gap of uncertainty. Additionally, the esoteric nature of my unrevealed self at times allows even me only fleeting glimpses of certain aspects that are beyond words, yet I feel their energy and I have faith that these transcendental insights will contribute toward my ongoing cycles of synthesis.
By associating faith with the unrevealed self and fact with the interactive self I am not pitting faith against fact, but rather suggesting an additional level of understanding and cooperative flow between the two. Unfortunately, I believe we too often mistake faith for fact as illustrated by our misconception of dictated dogma as faith. It is interesting that organized religion depends on an interactive perspective which is fact-based, whereas esoteric spirituality (and inner peace) depend on an unrevealed perspective which is faith-based. Yet faith (from where I sit) seems to more generally be considered a critical aspect of organized religion and not as often recognized, acknowledged, or utilized as an expression of the unrevealed self and as a potential path to inner peace and spirituality; (but then I guess I would perceive this from others because this expression would be unrevealed).
Regardless, I do believe there is deference given to a perceived majority associating faith with religious myth and ritual, but I believe that this perceived majority is in all likelihood a simple vocal majority. If one reasons through this process it is logically apparent that faith should be personal to each individual and should come from within the unrevealed self. So when one loses faith in organized religion it is really a recognition that the organizational aspect will always be in the realm of the interactive fact-based self and will never completely fulfill one’s unrevealed faith-based needs. And it is with this understanding of faith that I want to further explore the loss of faith within the unrevealed self.
I understand that one can find a personal faith within the unrevealed self through the prompting and encouragement of an organized, interactive initiative of faith; however, I have to thoughtfully ask – Is this search for faith unduly influenced and is the resulting ‘found’ faith misguided? And if the answer to this question (to any appreciable degree) is ‘Yes’ then I believe this is one way to actually lose faith because it has been driven out by fact-based doctrine masquerading as faith. (This is essentially what I stated in the previous paragraph.)
There are many who are not involved or only superficially involved with organized religion, but find interactive fulfillment through other outlets including other social organizations, volunteer organizations, community initiatives, political organizations, educational efforts, work, school, friends, and family. These are all important and worthwhile efforts (including many with religious affiliations) that aid in that aforementioned synthesis toward a truer self. The danger today, with the demands and busyness of everyday life, is overinvolvement. If one allows the interactive self to dominate, thus neglecting the unrevealed self, one can lose faith because their view is obstructed.
Some may consciously choose to suppress or ignore the unrevealed self because it is easier, or more comfortable, or because they are afraid of what they may see. To closely examine and actively seek an understanding of the unrevealed self is very hard work and (again) in this modern day there are many opportunities for interactive distraction that can encourage an avoidance of the potential pain and hard work inherent in this process. This avoidance results in a loss of faith.
But, as previously stated in the other direction, one should also not become over involved with the unrevealed self, neglecting the interactive self. This too can lead to a loss of faith by (instead of obstructing the view) creating an overwhelming sense of demoralizing befuddlement. (The exaggeration of excessive alliteration in this paragraph is purposeful, to help make the point.) Faith implies a ‘Leap’ that must be made safely to make some sense of the inexorable gap of uncertainty; but an overload of arcane ambiguity produces a dazzling complexity that will make it impossible to leap safely. I am more likely to blindly stumble over the edge or misjudge the gap and leap into obscurity, thus losing my faith by immersing myself in its brilliance; (i.e. unable to see the forest for the trees). It is important for there to be some balance between the unrevealed self and the interactive self for an efficiently productive synthesis.
Finally, when we assess our progress, we typically measure results tangibly, from an interactive perspective. To measure from an unrevealed perspective is piling faith on top of faith, intensifying the uncertainty, which can lead one to the unbalanced scenario as described in the previous paragraph. I said above that to seek an active understanding of the unrevealed self is hard (but necessary) work, yet if there is a disconnect between a superficial or minimally interactive self and a thoughtfully active unrevealed self, it may at times be difficult to see the value of this hard work; and it may be difficult to keep the faith when one feels alone and uncertain because of this lack of substantiation.
So, in this context of faith as it originates within the unrevealed self, and fact as a perception of our connected and reflected interactive self, one can lose faith by:
- mistaking a fact-based interactive perspective as faith-based;
- becoming over involved in fact-based interactive associations thus neglecting the unrevealed self;
- consciously choosing to suppress or ignore the unrevealed self because it is easier and more comfortable dealing with only the interactive self;
- becoming over involved with faith-based unrevealed considerations thus losing perspective; and
- not seeing the results of the hard work put into an active understanding of the unrevealed self.
In my Life I have made stops at each one of these crossroads; some, more than once. In some cases I have stayed a bit then simply moved on; in other settlements I have been run out of town; and in some I have had to pull myself from the muck and mire and limp away. But so far, each time, I have somehow managed to rediscover the necessary faith that will carry me on; a rejuvenating faith that I have only ever found within my unrevealed self…