Saturday, April 15, 2006
The Illusion of the False Self
Submitted by Bill Monks from: Fairview NJ US
THE ILLUSION OF THE FALSE SELF
(The hole in the doughnut)
Please lend me your ear as I jump into the hole in the doughnut .
Let me share a few thoughts on man’s mystifying an unknown foe the false self; sometimes referred to as the hole in the doughnut. The self is an illusion created by man to support his vanity and pride.
I believe the one greatest error in the catechesis of any Church was the neglecting the enormous importance of Jesus’ words “You must deny your very self” In his command “If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.” (Mark 8:34)
By believing in a false self, man’s vanity and pride sustains his refusal to recognize his nothingness . Yet there is no other way to follow Jesus without denying our grand illusion, the false self. Do we actually believe we have a choice?
In the last half of the twentieth century Americans have given birth to an extremely narcissistic culture. Psychoanalysts suddenly took intense interest in the study of narcissism, Man’s concentration on the false self they believe to be the immediate cause of social breakdown and empty Churches.
The growth of Narcissism was actually the false self coming into full bloom. Let me delve into the very function of man in order to try and understand this enigma of our time. The nebulous quality of “the false self” invites a more penetrating search into its nature, to the extent of challenging certain aspects of its supposed existence. What is the false self’s source? What is its meaning? What is its end? Is it friend or foe?
We have striven to know the self per se through the disciplines of Theology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and even the physical sciences. Though we have studied man’s behavior this way, and his genetic composition, we still cannot project with certainty and individual’s reaction to a given stimulus. There is still something enigmatic about the self of man.
A healthy approach to understanding man’s behavior would be to attempt to find out what is his function. If his function or role were determined it would certainly shed light on the reason why he behaves in a given way.
If a native found a watch in a remote jungle, eventually his curiosity would force him to take it apart to see what made it tick. After studying the parts and how they interacted, he would conclude that he had solved the mystery. He is basing his judgment upon observation of its behavior, with no reference to its function. And now that he knew how it ticked, he would probably give it a place of honor in the tribe’s artifact museum; never knowing that merely watching its behavior would not reveal its function.
But isn’t that exactly what the social sciences do? They observe a cross section of mankind, analyze, synthesize, collate, predict, and manipulate all of the statistics, without ever adverting to the fact that they are merely watching behavior, without searching for function. In effect they have put man into the museum of artifacts, as did the jungle native, although the erudite process tends to hide this.
To what does it avail us to know the mental processes and behavior of the child, if we are not aware of the child’s function? What is the value of the analyses of adolescent and adult behavior, if no effort is made to discover the purpose behind such behavior? Knowing the “why” of the adult the end product of growth, so to speak should give insight into the behavioral patterns of the child, as well as the adolescent and adult.
But to know man, we must look elsewhere than into his physiology and psychology. If the false self were our Being, then the attempt to comprehend it would be a contradiction. It is like analyzing a tool by using that very tool to do the analysis.
The nature of scientific study depends upon an outside agent acting upon the item to be investigated. One cannot be inside an outside of the mirror. One cannot study something objectively if all of the people who do the study approach it as subjects, that is, subjectively. One cannot say that the sun rises and sets objectively, simply because subjects by the thousands have seen it rise and set. A subjective experience, no matter how often repeated, cannot give objective information. Our scholars are hunting for treasure in the cave of shadows? Hence their accepted definition of self as the total, essential aspect or being of a person, of an individual, must be denied.
I think the definition of “nebulous” would more fittingly describe the self. It is cloudy, misty, or hazy; lacking definite form or limits; vague.
It is my hope to demonstrate that the self is not Being, but an illusion rooted in metaphysics, or in spiritual concepts, or in moral presumptions, or in epistemological assumptions.
Please don’t accuse me of doing the very thing I am denying, analyzing the self is like analyzing the hole in a doughnut. Its inch diameter, three inches in circumference, colorless and penetrability are not qualities of something that exist, but of a nonexistent entity; yet one which our language can describe, always recognizing that the hole is not a thing, not a being, but a mental concept.
The hypothesis is that man became aware of his “false self” when he first made the determination in Eden, that he would possess the knowledge God had, and separate his being from the will of God. This illusion, as Genesis indicates, was inspired by the evil one, and was conceived by man’s will. At the moment of the fall, this illusion was accepted as reality. The grand deception was in place. Man, therefore, acted in vanity. Man believed that he was a self, an independent being. Since this new concept was the hole in the doughnut, he became for all practical purposes, a slave to an empty concept, and slave to an illusion. Vanity and pride was to be its bulwark.
This illusion became his master, which is the process that the evil one desired, in attempting to destroy the will of God within him, (Man’s Conscience). An illustration might help. God was vehement against the false gods made by human hands. Why? Because they were “nothings” as Jeremiah indicated, “scarecrows in a melon patch”; however the subjects who approached them mentally gave power and life to them. In other words, they were not alive “eyes that do not see, hands that do not touch” but the subject accepted them as being superhuman, and powerful as well. Under this slavery, he was easily manipulated by evil forces, which penetrated his mind and judgments.
Man in his ignorance sought to be like God. He denies his dependence and seeks an independent self. He denies his nothingness and that which should have limited the self. He focused on the hole in the doughnut, a false reality, that had no meaning, a measurable emptiness). Since it was an illusion in the first place.
His focus on the illusinery false self can only lead him nowhere.. He has fled reality. To continue the analogy, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut expands the hole, but it abuses the doughnut, reality. He is fleeing the hound of reality into hell.
Thus the master of deceit smiled at his achievement, Man has the impression he has created a self by denying his conscience. Narcissism was now to be man’s hidden nemesis. He was alone with an illusion.
Even though emptiness is nothing, and therefore changing its dimensions amounts to nothing, still that part that gets modified in order to produce the illusion of expansion or creativity, suffers from the loss
How does this distortion happen? We may suspect that the legitimate desire for sufficiency, when modified to suit the “creativity” of this false self becomes greed.
By observation we may also conclude that the fruits of hate, loneliness, pride, scandal, jealousy, covetousness, isolation, suspicion, slander are also malformations of legitimate desires of the soul that have yielded to the stripping process (to continue the analogy).
What appears to be a positive action, the expansion of the False self, the enlarging of the hole, is in reality a negative action, the mutilation of the legitimate reality that a person has, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut. This phenomenon ,the concentration upon the hole and ignoring of the reality shows up in two Greek stories: Aesop’s “Dog with a Bone” who sees the reflection of his bone in the quiet water under the bridge, and in pursuit of the illusion, drops his real bone; and in the king Midas story, in which the proliferation of gold destroys his daughter.
Less clearly Jesus referred to it in his terse expression: “He who saves his self loses it”. By concentrating upon the hole in the doughnut and seeking to expand and enhance it, one destroys the doughnut itself. In what way are the vices mentioned above, and the pursuit of the emptiness of the false self, connected?
It is noteworthy that persons, who have a high level of self-awareness in this independent, separate, self-creative sense, also have a high level of anger. The connection should be clear. If we contemplate the above “ fruits” of the “False Self” we must conclude that it is the antithesis of love, a negation of being, the great divider, a descent into the hell on earth. The “False Self” is the source of man’s inhumanity to man. The false self can only rein alone.
Let us show how love and the false self cannot co- exist.are
“Love is patient “ “Self is impatient”
“Love is kind” “Self is hateful”
“Love does not envy” “Self is jealous”
“Love does not boast, “Self is vainglorious”
“Love is not proud” “Self is haughty”
“Love is not rude” “Self is arrogant”
“Love is not self-seeking “Self-love”
“Love is not easily angered” “Self is obstinate”
“Love does not delight in evil “Self is deceitful”
but rejoices in the truth.”
“Love always protects” “Self concern”
“Love always trusts” “Self-reliance”
(I Cor, 13.4©7) Paul of Tarsus knew the “False self” for the foe it is. The “I” of Paul’s soliloquy (Rom. 7:18©25) is the true Paul speaking (the willingness to be one with God) in the only true self. Paul describes the false self, as the enemy within. “I know that no good dwells in me, that is in my flesh; the desire to do right is there but not the power. What happens is that I do, not the good I will to do, but the evil I do not intend. But if I do what is against my will, it is not I who do it, but sin, which dwells in me. .
God’s love in man is our true and only self. This Self God offers man to share. Only if as Jesus says in (Mark 8:34) If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.”
Our true self is in the oneness of God.
AMEN
THE ILLUSION OF THE FALSE SELF
(The hole in the doughnut)
Please lend me your ear as I jump into the hole in the doughnut .
Let me share a few thoughts on man’s mystifying an unknown foe the false self; sometimes referred to as the hole in the doughnut. The self is an illusion created by man to support his vanity and pride.
I believe the one greatest error in the catechesis of any Church was the neglecting the enormous importance of Jesus’ words “You must deny your very self” In his command “If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.” (Mark 8:34)
By believing in a false self, man’s vanity and pride sustains his refusal to recognize his nothingness . Yet there is no other way to follow Jesus without denying our grand illusion, the false self. Do we actually believe we have a choice?
In the last half of the twentieth century Americans have given birth to an extremely narcissistic culture. Psychoanalysts suddenly took intense interest in the study of narcissism, Man’s concentration on the false self they believe to be the immediate cause of social breakdown and empty Churches.
The growth of Narcissism was actually the false self coming into full bloom. Let me delve into the very function of man in order to try and understand this enigma of our time. The nebulous quality of “the false self” invites a more penetrating search into its nature, to the extent of challenging certain aspects of its supposed existence. What is the false self’s source? What is its meaning? What is its end? Is it friend or foe?
We have striven to know the self per se through the disciplines of Theology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and even the physical sciences. Though we have studied man’s behavior this way, and his genetic composition, we still cannot project with certainty and individual’s reaction to a given stimulus. There is still something enigmatic about the self of man.
A healthy approach to understanding man’s behavior would be to attempt to find out what is his function. If his function or role were determined it would certainly shed light on the reason why he behaves in a given way.
If a native found a watch in a remote jungle, eventually his curiosity would force him to take it apart to see what made it tick. After studying the parts and how they interacted, he would conclude that he had solved the mystery. He is basing his judgment upon observation of its behavior, with no reference to its function. And now that he knew how it ticked, he would probably give it a place of honor in the tribe’s artifact museum; never knowing that merely watching its behavior would not reveal its function.
But isn’t that exactly what the social sciences do? They observe a cross section of mankind, analyze, synthesize, collate, predict, and manipulate all of the statistics, without ever adverting to the fact that they are merely watching behavior, without searching for function. In effect they have put man into the museum of artifacts, as did the jungle native, although the erudite process tends to hide this.
To what does it avail us to know the mental processes and behavior of the child, if we are not aware of the child’s function? What is the value of the analyses of adolescent and adult behavior, if no effort is made to discover the purpose behind such behavior? Knowing the “why” of the adult the end product of growth, so to speak should give insight into the behavioral patterns of the child, as well as the adolescent and adult.
But to know man, we must look elsewhere than into his physiology and psychology. If the false self were our Being, then the attempt to comprehend it would be a contradiction. It is like analyzing a tool by using that very tool to do the analysis.
The nature of scientific study depends upon an outside agent acting upon the item to be investigated. One cannot be inside an outside of the mirror. One cannot study something objectively if all of the people who do the study approach it as subjects, that is, subjectively. One cannot say that the sun rises and sets objectively, simply because subjects by the thousands have seen it rise and set. A subjective experience, no matter how often repeated, cannot give objective information. Our scholars are hunting for treasure in the cave of shadows? Hence their accepted definition of self as the total, essential aspect or being of a person, of an individual, must be denied.
I think the definition of “nebulous” would more fittingly describe the self. It is cloudy, misty, or hazy; lacking definite form or limits; vague.
It is my hope to demonstrate that the self is not Being, but an illusion rooted in metaphysics, or in spiritual concepts, or in moral presumptions, or in epistemological assumptions.
Please don’t accuse me of doing the very thing I am denying, analyzing the self is like analyzing the hole in a doughnut. Its inch diameter, three inches in circumference, colorless and penetrability are not qualities of something that exist, but of a nonexistent entity; yet one which our language can describe, always recognizing that the hole is not a thing, not a being, but a mental concept.
The hypothesis is that man became aware of his “false self” when he first made the determination in Eden, that he would possess the knowledge God had, and separate his being from the will of God. This illusion, as Genesis indicates, was inspired by the evil one, and was conceived by man’s will. At the moment of the fall, this illusion was accepted as reality. The grand deception was in place. Man, therefore, acted in vanity. Man believed that he was a self, an independent being. Since this new concept was the hole in the doughnut, he became for all practical purposes, a slave to an empty concept, and slave to an illusion. Vanity and pride was to be its bulwark.
This illusion became his master, which is the process that the evil one desired, in attempting to destroy the will of God within him, (Man’s Conscience). An illustration might help. God was vehement against the false gods made by human hands. Why? Because they were “nothings” as Jeremiah indicated, “scarecrows in a melon patch”; however the subjects who approached them mentally gave power and life to them. In other words, they were not alive “eyes that do not see, hands that do not touch” but the subject accepted them as being superhuman, and powerful as well. Under this slavery, he was easily manipulated by evil forces, which penetrated his mind and judgments.
Man in his ignorance sought to be like God. He denies his dependence and seeks an independent self. He denies his nothingness and that which should have limited the self. He focused on the hole in the doughnut, a false reality, that had no meaning, a measurable emptiness). Since it was an illusion in the first place.
His focus on the illusinery false self can only lead him nowhere.. He has fled reality. To continue the analogy, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut expands the hole, but it abuses the doughnut, reality. He is fleeing the hound of reality into hell.
Thus the master of deceit smiled at his achievement, Man has the impression he has created a self by denying his conscience. Narcissism was now to be man’s hidden nemesis. He was alone with an illusion.
Even though emptiness is nothing, and therefore changing its dimensions amounts to nothing, still that part that gets modified in order to produce the illusion of expansion or creativity, suffers from the loss
How does this distortion happen? We may suspect that the legitimate desire for sufficiency, when modified to suit the “creativity” of this false self becomes greed.
By observation we may also conclude that the fruits of hate, loneliness, pride, scandal, jealousy, covetousness, isolation, suspicion, slander are also malformations of legitimate desires of the soul that have yielded to the stripping process (to continue the analogy).
What appears to be a positive action, the expansion of the False self, the enlarging of the hole, is in reality a negative action, the mutilation of the legitimate reality that a person has, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut. This phenomenon ,the concentration upon the hole and ignoring of the reality shows up in two Greek stories: Aesop’s “Dog with a Bone” who sees the reflection of his bone in the quiet water under the bridge, and in pursuit of the illusion, drops his real bone; and in the king Midas story, in which the proliferation of gold destroys his daughter.
Less clearly Jesus referred to it in his terse expression: “He who saves his self loses it”. By concentrating upon the hole in the doughnut and seeking to expand and enhance it, one destroys the doughnut itself. In what way are the vices mentioned above, and the pursuit of the emptiness of the false self, connected?
It is noteworthy that persons, who have a high level of self-awareness in this independent, separate, self-creative sense, also have a high level of anger. The connection should be clear. If we contemplate the above “ fruits” of the “False Self” we must conclude that it is the antithesis of love, a negation of being, the great divider, a descent into the hell on earth. The “False Self” is the source of man’s inhumanity to man. The false self can only rein alone.
Let us show how love and the false self cannot co- exist.are
“Love is patient “ “Self is impatient”
“Love is kind” “Self is hateful”
“Love does not envy” “Self is jealous”
“Love does not boast, “Self is vainglorious”
“Love is not proud” “Self is haughty”
“Love is not rude” “Self is arrogant”
“Love is not self-seeking “Self-love”
“Love is not easily angered” “Self is obstinate”
“Love does not delight in evil “Self is deceitful”
but rejoices in the truth.”
“Love always protects” “Self concern”
“Love always trusts” “Self-reliance”
(I Cor, 13.4©7) Paul of Tarsus knew the “False self” for the foe it is. The “I” of Paul’s soliloquy (Rom. 7:18©25) is the true Paul speaking (the willingness to be one with God) in the only true self. Paul describes the false self, as the enemy within. “I know that no good dwells in me, that is in my flesh; the desire to do right is there but not the power. What happens is that I do, not the good I will to do, but the evil I do not intend. But if I do what is against my will, it is not I who do it, but sin, which dwells in me. .
God’s love in man is our true and only self. This Self God offers man to share. Only if as Jesus says in (Mark 8:34) If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.”
Our true self is in the oneness of God.
AMEN
