In my quest for the specificity of man {in general} and of
you, and of myself, it has led me to
the implication of personhood; of the definition of man, of person, of
personage. I remembered recently that the word person is derived from “persona” (Latin), from the masks worn by
actors in ancient Rome, which were worn in efforts to represent various
characters and to create a vocal resonance. Thus, person was first used as a definition of role play, of the
exterior; a description of what is seen or portrayed.
Later on it became synonymous with identity: “what kind of person is he?”
Jung was of the first to distinguish the meaning of person to also imply personhood, which eventually we derived the word, personage from. We know the definition of personhood to be the element of merely “being
a person.” However, Jung took that and stirred it into the concept of persona, enfolding the two together- the
exterior and the portrayal, and the scientific aspect- the unshakable reality
of being a being. It is extremely hard for me to comprehend the marvel of man,
and also the marvel of him as a person. When I concentrate on one aspect, such
as the scientific realm of being and existing, then the land of abstract, of person,
of who, is blurred and out of focus.
They need to be combined and studied collectively, yet the enormous complexity
of the two threaten to disengage my mind, and I find myself resorting to dismissing
it altogether in order to still my orbiting brain. As the French physician Paul
Tournier said,
“I become increasingly aware that the person, pure and unvarnished will always escape us. Doubtless only God knows it. I can never grasp the true reality, of myself or of anybody else, but only an image; a fragmentary and deformed image, an appearance: the ‘personage.’”
However, I
have managed to stumble upon a few stars in my unskilled explorations, and they
illuminate the experience of communication and of being so simply and easily; they are so obvious, yet I never fully acknowledged
their power, nor made an effort to put them fully into action. These things I want to share with you.
One is this: that the most critical requirement for unambiguous
and untainted human communication rests on the grounding of sincerity. Every day we intentionally or
unintentionally, don a persona like
the ancient Romans and playact our way into friendships and interactions. Mostly, reasons for this are derived from our culture and our inbred responses to human
exchanges: “Hi, how are you?” “I’m fine. How are you?” “I’m good.” Our motives
may be completely innocent and un-thought out, yet the very concept of not
being motivated from a place of wholeness and transparency, exploits our very
growth and mars our personage. To be known
and to know are very vulnerable
positions of the human mind and person. Yet the strength that arises from that
place of softness and lightness is untold. It takes courage to be sincere.
The other bright sphere in these little heavens is this: “Information
speaks of personages. Communion touches the person.” (Tournier) We all long for
understanding, to be understood and known for who and what we are. We desire to
laugh and love. We despise judgment and turn our faces from the sting of misinterpretation.
Thus, in order for this to be fulfilled, we must realize that first-- information
and the gathering of knowledge of one another must be sincerely undertaken to ultimately
lead to communion and closeness-- and of being unwritten-ly understood.
There will always endure within each of us an indecipherable
mystery of identity. Self will always remain unstrained and obscure.
We are secrets. We are beings which desire wholesomeness and yet practice deceit.
We are a portrayal and a guise, and yet we are raw authenticity. Our souls protest
against artificiality and the misinterpretation of our being.
Thus, friends,
let us be sincere. Let us all practice the beauty of being true.
