The False-Self, Healing

"This was also the point in my life when I became a master at masking my true thoughts."    --an unknown blogger

Simple Mindedly browsing though some blogs, I came upon this curious and very honest statement, "this was also the point in my life when I became a master at masking my true thoughts..."
How many of us relate to this? One guesses very many; it seems that one of our many fears is that we will not be accepted as we are, that we apparently see ourselves fearfully as a certain type of monster. While there are those rare individuals in every society who rub against the grain, some who are evil, for most of us this is a fear we face each and every day.

Recalling the words of R.D. Lang, "every man is involved whether or to the extent to which he is being true to his nature." The false-self as Lang views it is the complement of an inner, spiritual self, if you will, which is occupied with maintaining its identity and freedom by being transcendent, unembodied, and thus never grasped, pinpointed, trapped or possessed.
Its aim, writes Lang in his book, The Divided Self, "is to be a pure subject, without any objective existence. Thus except in certain safe moments, the individual seeks to regard his existence as the expression of a false-self, not himself.

 In spiritual terms, this is devastating, and it is very common. How often do we encounter the "fake" smile and the yawn which quickly follows it? How often do we feel divided, yet proceed with the response that is expected, even when it feels untrue to our deeper self?
And how often must we force ourselves to comport an attitude which we don't feel yet believe for social reasons to be obliged? In some societies these behaviors are usual and expected; societies in which the group is more valued than individuals frequently demand this behavior; one learns, 'a smile often hides a frown.' And in these groups, this behavior is normative.

Yet here in the West, often there is the sense of a dis-connect with the self and others. We are afraid to say who we are, or what matters most in our short lives; maintaining this stance may lead to a sense of grief, depression or loss over time.
As Lang expresses the situation, having an identity for the self, a private identity and another identity developed for the consumption of others is at times functional, and also may be at times non-functional leading to a sense of dis-reality, a feeling of not being real, a fake.
While living one's truth is not always easy, healing the self, gaining a perspective beyond the solution of the "false-self" is very healing to a soul; the soul seeks its original wholeness.

The false, divided self is like a child, eternally small, anxious, weak and not responsible for what happens in any given interaction. This is because a feeling arises that it wasn't truly me who did those things--it was someone else. Alternatively, there is a sense that one may do things--but only to a point-- because the truer, inner self would not go that far, or allow those thoughts or behaviors--would they? So it's not me.

The end point of many spiritual traditions is to encourage the maturity of the individual, to acknowledge the rightness of all creation, individuals included, so as to bridge the gap, with the clear knowledge, the belief in the harmony and rightness of matters to each one.
This existential dawning of both 'false' and true, undivided, self is widespread across today's societies; writers as diverse as Henry Fielding, Kierkegaard, Sartre, D.H. Lawrence and Carl Jung have acknowledged its role in the modern world. It is becoming a constant theme as societies settle into an industrialized, group identity. This leaves little room for the self, so you then must carve a whole one.

Blunted Emotions and Spirituality

"When we refuse to accept things the way that they are, we make ourselves   (and often others) unhappy." --Ronald Pies, M.D.

Author and Psychiatrist Ron Pies writes in his newest book, The Three-Petalled Rose: How the Synthesis of Judaism, Buddhism, and Stoicism Can Create a Healthy, Fulfilled and Flourishing Life,  that the mind-heart connection in spiritual matters is very real and vital.
And while Dr. Pies has been a sometimes flash-point, many who read his book will take the positive from his discussion on stoicism.

Stoicism can be attributed within Western civilization all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps further back even than they. Its philosophy espouses an essential aim of traveling lifes' paths via the 'middle way' or as the bible reminds its reader, 'this too shall come to pass.'
While not limited to the West or to Christian thought, stoics may be seen in a more universal, spiritual light.
Those who can learn to see the world in just this moment, life as it really is; just now, the way that things are, can be well on his or her way to a centered and equitable life, a stoic.
 Many people believe that stoicism involves little or no feelings at all. However a study of the ancient thinker Marcus Aurelius, for example, proves otherwise. And he just may be the original cognitive therapist.

In the west, especially, and over the world generally, modern medicine has wrought great power into the realm of nature; we have, through scientific discovery, overcome many biological forces that previously were the bane of humanity. Diseases, such as polio, have been mostly eliminated. Small Pox is today a footnote in history books, and the dread of AIDS and Malaria brought under its scientific scope.
In the realm of the mind, there has been much improvement in treatment and human lives; there is however a reliance and increasing use of anti-depressant drugs, pharmacological medications given to more and more persons world-wide, now often from an early age, that may result in the  blunting" of the emotions or affect, as science refers to it.

 Developed as a wonder treatment against the scourges of mental illnesses, these very drugs intended to aid sufferers may now be the very same substances which prompt their feelings of indifference and coolness towards others.

There is concern. Are we to raise up the first generation known to mankind enveloped by these drugs? Many are pondering how a mother may then make an attachment to her infant, how a parent may properly care for their children; how any person will have the experience of attachment or simple affection for others, how the bonds of marriage will endure in an environment of an increasingly drug induced apathy? For some, it seems to be a matter of trade-offs, deals 'with the devil.' Are we blowing it and not looking towards the greatest causes?

 In the spiritual life, there is a need or desire to perceive what is not immediately, easily or clearly seen, the clouds which obscure the clear blue sky, if you will. The poets, musicians, the writers and the artists among us clamber to express their hearts, and very often speak for our own.
What is to become of them, what is to become of the most basic foundation in human life, to love and be loved without fully intact affection with which to perceive and appreciate? How will modern, stressed mankind survive now?

American researcher, medical doctor and critic Dr. Helen Fisher charges, "these drugs blunt emotions and reduce obsessive-compulsive thinking, but those are also two main characteristics of romantic love. 
Relationships may be torpedoed not because of the factors between individuals, but because-- it just may be the drug.
So many nowadays are taking anti-depressants when young; they wish to avoid stress or sadness, but by the same token they may be robbed of life's joys in equal measure.
"The writer May Sarton noted, "Pain is the great teacher...joy [and] happiness, are what we take and do not question...but pain forces us to think, and to make connections, to sort out what is what, to discover what has been happening to cause it.." And this is at the heart of the spiritual life, making sense of the world around us, and our place within it.

  For Pies, the answer of sorts, may lie in a form of Stoicism: We recognize that there exists in the world a way, a being that existed before our entrance into the world, and will  likely continue  long after our exit from this world.  Addressing the focus of his lifes' work, mental illness, Pies notes, "when we refuse to accept things the way that they are, we make ourselves (and often others) unhappy." And when we do accept things, we may find a certain peace, free to pursue other, more productive tasks.
This presents an eternal spiritual challenge of acceptance for the things that we cannot change and the wiseness to know that one from any other.

The Chaplaincy Institute, a California based inter-faith organization writer notes, "If we can learn to respect and value the spiritual wisdom of people diagnosed with mental health conditions, we will be respecting their very essence. Then perhaps all of us, as a society, will become more capable of loving this part of ourselves: the part that gets disoriented, that is prone to despair, that loses sight of hope, that falls prey to fear, that cannot feel love, that is constantly in motion, and that keeps us from experiencing that beautiful inner stillness where we rest peacefully in the arms of the Divine Presence.

"

Bids For Connection

Trying to hammer our points home, we try and try. Is part of the puzzle the way in which our words are used? Are we received in a way that feels genuine-- after all, mostly, we have a few simple wants at the end of each day. There is a longing for connection, to be felt, to be heard, to be seen, each of which is to be loved. To be loved more for who we are than what it is we do. Each of our lives has its own inherent dignity. How are we treating each other in any given moment?

Writer and thinker, John Gottman refers to these moments as bids for connection. And he says they are as much physical as they are spiritual. We want the one we are speaking to to turn and to listen to us, but we also want their heart to receive and consider our words. For it is deep within that our lives are in part made; while a first attempt may reduce the tension level, it doesn't always lead to the genuine heartfelt connection we often seek.
 Feeling safety in the prospect of vulnerability is possibly core to the ways of genuine spiritual connection with our self first and then others. Writing in his book, The Science of Trust, Gottman says "we can define the very nature of trust as having our partners best interests at heart, rather than just self-interest. Trust is the opposite of a zero sum game." Or perhaps another view is, that I can trust you to be as you are in any given place at any given time.

When we at first react to others, sometimes it's in 'wounded' mode so we can't really receive their message due to our perceived need to hang on tightly to our sense of effrontery or insult to our dignity.
And talk is cheap. We often, unconsciously even, regard others by what they do moreover than by what they say. And then no one wants to be the first to 'give in.' Finding the courage to be the one to make the first move, to overcome the very human reluctance to level, to be neither better nor worse than any other, can be scary.

 There are always risks to our daily interactions, and keeping in mind that love involves both giving and receiving, finding the courage to take the risk, to make the move is actually a very sacred gift to oneself as much as to others. These two essential elements, giving and receiving are the building blocks of the loving connections that we so often seek.
In bidding for connection, one may discover something that feels a whole lot better than fighting, and that together you are capable of producing something that's so much better after all.

Love, Sex and Sensuality

Sentimentality must be clearly distinguished from love--Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla

So much of our deepest, spiritual longings center around acceptance, both of self and other. We want to freely love and be loved, what some call "unconditional love." Yet in the everyday world, in the practice life, this can be confusing, contradictory even. We consider the element of free will and its role in love, yet with free will and our natural responses to others, love and sex can become disordered, confused for something that it ultimately may not be. While the whole of our feelings are natural and a guide to our behavior, it is less important to know what our feelings are than what value or how we respond to them. Accepting our feelings is first and foremost.

Writing in his book, Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla notes that, "however, as we know, a human person cannot be an object for use. Now, the body is an integral part, and so must not be treated as if it were detached from the whole person." Doing so threatens to devalue a person. Let me say here, there is no such thing as pure sensuality, such exists in animals and is their proper instinct. What then is "completely natural to animals is then, sub-natural to humans."

This is to say that sensuality by itself, while a natural response to a body of the opposite sex, is not love. Sensuality may be love when it is open to inclusion of the other elements of love, such as desire, friendship, good will, patience, understanding, and so forth. Alone, sensuality is notoriously fickle, seeing only a body, turning to it simply as a possible object of enjoyment. And it is not only the physical presence of a body which may trigger sensuality, "but also the inner senses such as emotion and imagination; with their assistance, one can make contact with a body of a person not physically present."

However this does not go to show that "sensuality is morally wrong itself. An exuberant, and readily roused sensual nature is the making for a rich, if not more difficult, personal life." Sensuality can indeed be a factor for making a free will love, an ardent and fully formed love.

Sentimentality as an experience must be and is clearly distinct from sensuality. As previously stated, a sense-impression typically accompanies an emotional response (a "value" response). Direct contact by persons of the opposite sex always is accompanied by a direct impression which may be an emotion. The inclination to respond to sexual values such as masculine and feminine, should be called sentiment.

Sentimental 'susceptibility' is the the source of affection between persons. In contrast to sensuality where the most immediate sense-impression is perhaps the body, sentimental regard views the person as a whole; it includes the body in its sense-impression, but does not limit itself to that aspect.

Sexual value then continues as the totality, the oneness of the person. Affection is not an urge to consume. It is appreciative, it therefore goes with the values ascribed to beauty, to a strong feeling and value for a person in their masculine and feminine natures.

However in affection, in sentimentality, a different desire than simple use or lust is evident; it is the desire for proximity, for nearness, a longing to be together in a physical presence. Sentimental love "keeps two people close together, it binds them, even if they are physically far apart. This love causes them to move in a similar orbit. It embraces memory, imagination and also communicates with the will." Tolerance, understanding and tenderness enter into their relationship. Being a love not wholly focused on the body, this love is sometimes called spiritual love.

Nonetheless with distance, sentimental love may turn to disillusionment. So it is not always immediately apparent that a particular sentimental love is really able to discern the true, inner values of a person. Thus love cannot be "largely a form of sex-appeal." For a human love to grow, Wojtyla says, "it must become integrated, a whole to a whole, person to person. Without this developing integration, a love is not a durable, human, love; thus it simply dies.

This article appeared here previously on May 14, 2009