I guess the question; ‘Who are you?’ allows us to focus on what we see as being uniquely ‘us’. We can also look at this question by asking an observer, perhaps a friend ’ Who is this person?’ This is the external ‘you’, that people experience when they interact with you in various ways – when people get to know you, do they see the ‘real you’? It’s an important question because it tests your satisfaction or comfort with your perception of ’self’.
Selwyn talks about two aspects of self which I think have more to do with the ‘meaning of life’ and how we find life’s meaning. I don’t think it’s on target in regard to describing the nature of what we call ’self’. He talks about self-realisation and self-renunciation, as follows: “The school of self-realisation – a typically Western position – says all the answers are in you. The school of self-renunciation – a broadly Eastern position – says the ’self’ is a cancer and has to be cut out. One leaves you centred on your ’self’, the other leaves no ’self’ at all.”
I’m not sure it’s helpful to get too caught up in what is ’self”; perhaps it’s better to look at how we relate to other ’selfs’, that is, those people with whom we have a relationship; be it family, friends, work colleagues, (neighbours) community, and nation/world. To deny ourselves and take up our cross is only possible if we have built relationship based on our desire to serve, and they are not built on our desire to control, rule or destroy. If we truly love God with all our heart, mind and strength; and, also love everyone else in the same way God loves us – then and only then, can we deny our ’self’. Do you agree?
The self
I guess the question; ‘Who are you?’ allows us to focus on what we see as being uniquely ‘us’. We can also look at this question by asking an observer, perhaps a friend ’ Who is this person?’ This is the external ‘you’, that people experience when they interact with you in various ways – when people get to know you, do they see the ‘real you’? It’s an important question because it tests your satisfaction or comfort with your perception of ’self’.
Selwyn talks about two aspects of self which I think have more to do with the ‘meaning of life’ and how we find life’s meaning. I don’t think it’s on target in regard to describing the nature of what we call ’self’. He talks about self-realisation and self-renunciation, as follows: “The school of self-realisation – a typically Western position – says all the answers are in you. The school of self-renunciation – a broadly Eastern position – says the ’self’ is a cancer and has to be cut out. One leaves you centred on your ’self’, the other leaves no ’self’ at all.”
I’m not sure it’s helpful to get too caught up in what is ’self”; perhaps it’s better to look at how we relate to other ’selfs’, that is, those people with whom we have a relationship; be it family, friends, work colleagues, (neighbours) community, and nation/world. To deny ourselves and take up our cross is only possible if we have built relationship based on our desire to serve, and they are not built on our desire to control, rule or destroy. If we truly love God with all our heart, mind and strength; and, also love everyone else in the same way God loves us – then and only then, can we deny our ’self’. Do you agree?