21–30 of 134 posts
I am a husband. I am a father. I am a child of God. There is a fine line between putting yourself in a box that you (or others) create for you and knowing who you are. The classifications that Paul lists in his post are of the first kind. The second kind, you can't really change.
This is a major component of Christianity. (I'm not preaching here) I thought it was interesting that the non religious world is figuring out things that have been core teachings for the last 2800 years. In the christian world, it is called "taking yourself off the throne and putting another entity on it". The entity that gets put on it is variable, but the constant is that you are not on it.
I'm not Christian, but I am familiar with the concept you describe, and it seems very different to me. Paul is I think advocating people to mentally distance their selves from roles or identity-classes, like straight, Christian, or atheist. The Christian throne metaphor advocates for centering or focusing on something other than the self, while entirely allowing for roles or identity classes.
Having a realistic sense of self is great; diminishing your self into a nothingness (i.e. totally altruistic) is not something to be admired. Then again, maybe I've read too much Ayn Rand.
An oversimplification suffering = your self image vs perception of reality self The argument goes that man is a prisoner of his self image. This self image is a mixture of his desires, wants, tastes, hopes, fears.... This can be seen as a self image that arises out of conditioning by the society and self. You are like a frog in the well and imagine the well to be the universe. You are limited and shaped by the well.…
The truth is that we are nothing in particular.
There is pain, there is hunger, there is thirst, etc.
The interesting part is: When does it become your pain, your hunger, etc?
This is a major component of Christianity. (I'm not preaching here) I thought it was interesting that the non religious world is figuring out things that have been core teachings for the last 2800 years. In the christian world, it is called "taking yourself off the throne and putting another entity on it". The entity that gets put on it is variable, but the constant is that you are not on it.
That sounds like a very different concept actually. Worshiping a king seems more likely to narrow your perception.
too effeminate to be straight
too smart to be kind
Reminds me of a lecture given on Beginner's Mind that emphasizes the pitfalls of intellectualism: 'Can we look at our lives in such a way? Can we look at all of the aspects of our lives with this mind, just open to see what there is to see? I don't know about you, but I have a hard time doing that. I have a lot of habits of mind—I think most of us do. Children begin to lose that innocent quality after a while, and so…
Having a realistic sense of self is great; diminishing your self into a nothingness (i.e. totally altruistic) is not something to be admired. Then again, maybe I've read too much Ayn Rand.
I don't think Paul's saying he's an altruist when he says "I am nothing". It's about not assigning attributes to our identity.
I'm also reminded of Daniel Dennett's secret to happiness: find something bigger than yourself and devote your life to it. That too allows you to drop your baggage and become 'nothing'. And it's a great way to leave a lasting impact on the world too.