Caerus

Summary:

One of our greatest quests in life is to discover and understand who we are. Throughout life, we’re always told to “be yourself” – but what does that really mean? How are we to do that if we don’t know what ‘yourself’ looks like? Thinking about these questions, I’ve come up with a few ideas that might shed light on some of the many answers to them. This mini-essay is just the introduction to what is likely going to be a series of pieces investigating what it means to be ourselves, and how we could go about doing so. In the future, I’ll delve deeper into the ideas presented in my writing, which I hope you’ll join me for as well.

What did Bruce Lee mean when he said "Be formless, shapeless; like water”? Well, it’s not very hard to figure out. He was talking about taking on a state of mind capable of swift adaptation, and acceptance of things out of our control. And that’s all well and good, but an extension of the martial arts master’s metaphor yields a similarly interesting concept. That is – even the water molecule is made up of rudimentary atoms. This molecule never changes its makeup, only its shape, its external appearance. The internals remain identical, regardless of if it is ice, steam, liquid; a cloud, glacier, or raging river. Furthermore, did that water molecule suddenly appear out of thin air, perfect in its form? No! It took huge amounts of energy for each hydrogen atom to bond to the central oxygen atom. "Leon,” you may now be asking, "where in God’s name are you going with this, and how does basic chemistry relate to convoluted philosophical concepts?” And I’m sorry to say, but I’ll have to answer that question with another one – or multiple, namely: 

What does it mean to be yourself? In truth, is there any real answer to that question? After all, you’re a mosaic made up of the immeasurable amount of people you’ve met over the years. Cultivated into existence, rather than having an inherent personality embedded into you like a sleeper cell. Moreover, among eight billion people, there must be at least one other with nearly identical interests and habits to yours. So how is it, that if faced with this character-based clone of you, there would still likely be a distinct contrast in temperament? Overall, it appears irrefutable that humans each have their own unique personalities, regardless of origin or atomic makeup. Now, it may seem as if I’m using the words “character” and “personality” somewhat interchangeably so far – but I promise I’m not, so let us make the distinction clear. Character is, at least according to Aristotle, something that arises from our interests and habits, a piece of us that began being nurtured when we were children[1]. It is something that we can change, albeit through great effort. Personalities, here, refers to both ways of acting, and how people view themselves. In essence, your self-concept and how you convey it. These personalities, both internal and external, took lots of energy on your end to craft (and continue to mould, for they are ever-evolving) – whether that process is conscious or subconscious, it is something you ought to be proud of!

In this case, it’s best to unapologetically project who you are, or who you believe yourself to be. Admittedly, however, there may be some truth to the Japanese adage regarding the different masks we wear when around certain people. But why separate your external and internal personalities so much that it is though you are performing when with others? If you do this, being alone would feel like being stuck with a stranger. And more importantly, perhaps, all the aforementioned energy required to create your personality-molecule would have been for naught. Nonetheless, exhibition of self-concept should be done within reason – let’s discuss why that is.

If one adopts an external personality they believe as being truly themselves, and that external representation of their self-concept is such that they then physically or emotionally impede on others’ well-being, distorting who they are as a result, then that’s identical to being a "phoney”  since they’re accomplishing the same thing. In other words, wanting people to think a certain way of them – in this case, that they don’t care what others think. The reason this doesn’t work, and is truly counter-intuitive, is that as with everything in life, equilibrium is needed here. Yin and Yang, balanced duality; offsetting the outward expression of your ego with the comfort, and therefore contentment, of others. People who know that a balance is the most optimal way of being one’s self, find a middle ground in which they are able to split free from the expectations and paradigms of others, while still maintaining a form that is approachable to many, both physically and emotionally. As it so happens, between writing the draft of this paper and finalising it, my friends and I met a mutual acquaintance who proved to be an excellent model of such behaviour. With a long, Dali-esque moustache, long hair draped onto their shoulders, and an assortment of kaleidoscopic clothing, the only word fitting this appearance would be "zany”. And yet, despite being an excellent representation of their personality, neither myself nor my more unadventurous companions had any kind of adverse feeling as a result. In fact, it almost made the person more interesting. This individual’s inner personality expression did not seem restricted, either. They happily shared intimate details about their equally eccentric everyday life, unabashed by its contents; but again, in a way that none of our company felt awkward.

How did they achieve this? My guess is as good as yours, dear reader, but I have a few ideas from which you might be able to springboard. First, though their external appearance was seemingly true to their self-concept, and thus somewhat unkempt, you would not call it dirty. They still very clearly took care of themselves, and chose their garments with meaning. Second, though the stories were filled with obscene details, their outlandish nature did not seem to go over the individual’s head – in fact, they told them in an almost bawdy manner. Though they may have been aware of the tales’ idiosyncrasy, there was pride taken in telling them, with the humour being acceptance of eccentricity rather than disparaging or self-deprecating. Maybe that’s what it all boils down to! Be your own wacky, crazy, unhinged self, but remain aware of how deranged you might come across and be able to laugh at that. Then, despite all that, still carry yourself with unwavering dignity.

This manner of being is what we should all strive to achieve, but unfortunately, ego gets in the way of understanding. Just like any other animal, humans want to stand out in hopes a mate will be attracted to our unique characteristics. This instinct has now been exacerbated by capitalism and a grossly materialist society, blurring the line between wants and what are felt as needs. Consequently, letting go of all the nonsense surrounding the core of who you are is out of the question for most to do without psychedelics. Though meditation could be argued as a pathway to uncoupling yourself from ‘you’, that level of ego objectivity is difficult to attain in meditative states for the general public; some monks may even take decades to reach there! And who has that kind of time nowadays? 

There are a myriad of aspects of character, personality, and self-concept we could still explore, but I don’t wish to take any more of your time than I already have. However, it might be nice to explore those concepts by turning these mini-essays into a series. If I’ve committed any logical fallacies or spoken inaccurately at any point during this paper, please let me know; I’ll address them in the following one. To end with Bruce Lee’s ever-lasting wisdom: "Always be yourself, express yourself, have faith in yourself, do not go out and look for a successful personality and duplicate it”. Until next time, then.

Works Cited

[1] Aristotle, and Terence Irwin. Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2000, eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS433/Nicomachean%20Ethics.pdf.