Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Paradoxos: My Hermeneutic of Self

I composed a post a few nights ago in a smashed stupor . Naturally I deleted it first thing the next morning. I hope that no one read it, it was mainly based around the music I was listening to at the time which happened to be Blind Melon, that pretty little grunge band that made it big because the lead singer died of a drug overdose.

The central idea in the post was more concerned with me...as all my writing is. I rambled about my deceitfulness.
I am a liar!
Disingenuis!
False!
Nothing that I do, say or am is true.
All the words that I use to convey my sense of self to another person are elaborately concocted lies. How do I know this?
For one, I do it consciously, I am a deliberate liar.
Also, I have no sense of self, how could I convey an image of myself to people without actually knowing what that self is?
If I convey a personality, a concrete self to other people, it must necessarily mean that I am lying. But then again...
Am I being dogmatic? Just because I do not know myself for certain does not mean that my falsely imagined interpretations of myself are outright lies. They are simply interpretations. Again I find myself back on this topic of interpretation. What did I conclude last time? I concluded that interpretation is a dialogue, a discourse, a discussion or a relationship between two beings. We gain knowledge of ourself and "the other" through the dialogue.
The sense of self is found inbetween the two beings.
The space between the two is where everything is found.
Our falsely imagined senses of self are lies, but by interacting with others we find ourself.

I have a rather split personality. One dogmatic, the other sees only grey. Sometimes a third inbetween sees both at the same time. Another sees nothing at all. What does this have to do with what I just concluded about the relationships between people? Perhaps I can find a sense of self within myself. My different and contradictory selves are in fact in dialogue with one another. My writing, my speaking, my eating, breathing and walking are enactments of the dialogue within myself. Perhaps people with a dissosiative disorder/multiple personality disorder (commonly and incorrectly called scitzophrenics) are merely those with very distilled versions of themselves. We all have them, they are just not manifested as clearly as mentally distressed people. That is the root of mental illness anyways, extreme versions of normal behavior.

I within myself am a dialogue of opposites and compliments...I am a contradiction...I must interpret the dialogue between these parts to find a self...not a centralized sense of self, but a self created from dependant relationships between different compartments...this is the hermeneutic of self...I am a paradox...

22 comments:

Erroneous Monk said...

Wallowing in your own crapulance are we?

the philosopher one said...

I am beginning to doubt that you read what I write.

the nortre dame said...

crapulance?! HAHAHA, what a great word! it's big and *i* my friends know it w/o need of any translation whatsoever! wohoo! i'm great. crapulance hahaha yeah andrew, john totally doesn't read your blogs anymore. i think he stopped like a year ago...

Anonymous said...

I KNEW IT!
GOTCHAAA!

Anyways, I agree, and am at least somewhat the same way, but wha tif 'You' isn;t the dialogue between the parts, what is 'you' ARE the paradox?

the nortre dame said...

what...the...hell...are...you...on? speak english. oh wait, if that's a referrence to andrew's blog than okay, i didn't read it either. i just saw that it was from andrew and i was like, "oh andrew..." i like commenting on them though!

Altruistic Indemnity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Altruistic Indemnity said...

Interesting post. Perhaps we don't ever find ourselves, but are merely shaped by interaction to become entirely new, which we have already known. I believe a sence of self is achieved not by interaction, but by careful introspection and seclusion. Before we know ourself, we first know our nature.

Anonymous said...

I just slumbled along this blog with the " next blog' button. I only read the first few quickly, and a few from around the Archives, but I think its pretty good. Plus It doesent sell out like alot of the other ones.

the philosopher one said...

Why thankyou crandaddy. See prettyone and notre dame the writing here is worth reading! And Mortified Penguin, introspection and seclusion is a path to understanding, but if the things learned through that are not tested and put up against others then they are essentially meaningless and fruitless. I think that a brief look at pre-buddhist eastern ascetics and early Christian "desert fathers" will expose the folly of seclusion. What say you?

the philosopher one said...

Also, to respond to the Irishman, yes perhaps my verb should have been pluralized. I are paradox!

Altruistic Indemnity said...

I think you're right. If we never look introspectively, however, we will never reach the period in which we may put our beliefs on trial. But either way, a sence of self begins with introspection. If we were to derive self from others, we would be categorized in the same way we categorize teenagers. Jocks, Nerds...
But you're right, what we can say about ourselves is essentially a lie. Or perhaps we are made up from various dimentions. There are certainly multiple conflicting selves within us.
'Do as I say, not as I do.' we ourselves 'are paradox.'

Erroneous Monk said...

And we all enjoy Christmas. Intresting pice and I do read it. I just like to keep things light. For I am the light of the world. Like pudding.

the nortre dame said...

hahaha oh baby...i love you. last time i checked though, Jesus was the light of the world. and pudding is quite pudding like and thick, i wouldn't think that such a substance would have room for light...i like things kept light, who cares? but i also like things hard and so very fast john.

Heliantheae said...

i think i shall commit a murder soon, perhaps too. and then there shall be no more who are pretty or are associated with hunchbacks. seriously. disgusted.

the philosopher one said...

honestly, can we not make a mockery of everything that I write?

Erroneous Monk said...

Oh shush pumpkin. Its all in love. And jen, no murder. Unless its men in tight pants.

the nortre dame said...

hey, what's going on here? does jen want to MURDER me?! i'll throw her into a freakin volcanoe if she does. anywho...you wore tight pants for a play didn't you my dear? but yes, guys in tight pants, tights or speedos is a definate no, no...they too will go along w/ jen into that volcanoe.

Heliantheae said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heliantheae said...

and volcanoes are scary. horribly so. is someone threatened? i want to swimm in lava. it sounds like heaps and heaps of fun. and my alipahtic chains can cohese with the carbon and the silicon. i'm so stoked. does it get to be the hawaii type volcano with the really cool lava, or the volcanoes which reside around here...with the pyroclastic flows? those are even better...so much destruction and all that mud flow. awesomeness!

the nortre dame said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the nortre dame said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
the nortre dame said...

jen, do you know what? i'm done raging w/ you back and forth like this. i'm just simply not going to say anything to you if i can't say anything nice. sorry for being rude before.