I am a very
self-conscious person. Now we are all self-conscious of course. By this I mean
that we are all able to take a step back and observe ourselves – we are
conscious of our “selves”. There is an “I” which recognises and observes the
“me”. We can recognise ourselves in the mirror. But I tend to take this to the
extreme. The part of me that is observing me is quite noisy and intrusive. It
is always watching, checking, and – this is the worst part – judging. This
process is virtually unceasing for me, which means that it is very difficult
for me to just “feel” something. Even while this is happening, a part of me –
and it feels like a large part – is watching rather than feeling. This is
amplified even further when someone actually asks me how I feel. In that
situation, not only am I judging and assessing myself, but also wondering how
the other person judges and assesses me. Am I feeling the “right” thing? Is
there something wrong with me if I don’t?
Most animals (or so it
seems – but it also seems to me that it is very difficult to measure such
things) do not have this “self” consciousness. Now I am more than prepared to
be proved wrong about this. But in any case, it is possible to imagine a state
of mind in which one simply feels something, or experiences something, without
this overlord (superego?) intervening. It may even be possible to move the
centre of our being, so to speak, from one of these positions to the other
(there may be other positions too). That is to say, I can live in the me that
is experiencing, or the I that is observing. It is likely that as a very young
baby we tend to live in the me, and the I only develops some time later. This
is why babies (like many animals) are not
self-conscious in the sense I am describing it here. This is why they can poop,
fart and burp without shame (which is how self-consciousness often manifests
itself). It seems to me that many meditative and spiritual practices are
actually techniques for living in the me rather than the I. I have never been
very successful with these methods. I find it very difficult to get out of the
I.
It is not a huge step
to conceive of this development of the I, this separation into two parts, as
what some religions have traditionally referred to as “The Fall”. Now I know
that this is not an original idea, but this is not an academic treatise, so I
am not going to go in search of the sources. It is clear to me, anyway, that
this bifurcation of the self into at least two parts, the I and the me, is a
source of pain and loss. We long to return to the state of unity that existed
prior to this. It would seem to be easier to live simply as me, to live in the
moment, or however else this might be phrased. Unfortunately, I do not believe
that we can ever return to this state of innocence. And perhaps it is not even
desirable in the end. I haven’t found the answer to this yet, and almost certainly
never will. But I suspect that the path should not be backwards towards a
pre-existing (real or imagined) state of unity. Rather it needs to be forwards,
towards a higher state of unity. And here we are, once again, at the Hegelian
dialectic, at least according to my limited understanding of this. We begin
with this initial unity, which falls apart into a thesis and antithesis (I and
me). The challenge is to find the synthesis which brings these together in a
new unity, which is not the same as the initial unity. I’ll send you a message
from there if I ever make it.
No comments:
Post a Comment