After my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I will see God; whom I myself shall behold, and whom my eyes shall see, and not another. – Job 19:26-27
What If You Looked Like Yourself?
Here’s a strange thought. Suppose our inner condition, our psyche, our moral fiber, was reflected by our outward appearance. What if sex appeal mirrored soul?
Here and now, they obviously don’t correspond. There’s no question of “if” or “to what degree” a person’s body matches her heart—or at least we don’t ask such questions out loud. But what if we did?
Sometimes I think we expect (or at least wish for) a correlation. We have a hazy notion that inside and outside ought to match up. We talk about “wearing your heart on your sleeve,” but what we really want is the heart “clothing” the entire body.
Our physicality, for now, is merely a shell which may or may not correspond with the inner person. Beauty is imparted with a free hand, and we are hard put to explain why. But just the same, we can’t sever the relationship between spirit and body. Far from it. Only consider: We get wrapped up in someone’s beauty, and no superlative soars high enough to express our appreciation! It’s only later that we remark, “Now I know who he really is.” Surprise, surprise. Misled by beauty.
We love beauty. In some ways, we think like Greeks: To be beautiful is to be good; forget the rest. But as much as we idolize the “great bodies” of our day, we can’t entirely divorce the soul connection. What? You’re telling me she sleeps around? Surprise, surprise. Misled by beauty again.
Most of us have seen “plain” people with an inexplicable, radiating beauty. And by the same token, we all know about physical beauty “cheapened.” For now, appearances are misleading and our eyes can trick us. Only experience and exploration, as with Jane Austen's infamous Mr. Darcey, reveal who a person really is. Someday it would be a thrill to meet someone and realize, I see…this is who you are.
All this brings up a question: What would it feel like to be really “integrated?” Some of us will find out. In the words of that ancient theologian, Job:
Job implies that a connection between spirit and body will continue, even—or especially—after death. And in fact, this is a fundamental aspect of Christ’s message. One day, people with live spirits will receive the “resurrection” bodies Jesus will finally confer. By that time our souls will be renovated, brought to their intended glory by the great Artisan. At last our spirits will project a physical “mirror” we won’t be afraid to look at.
In the meantime, I tend to think it’s the mercy of God that flesh doesn’t reflect soul. Can you picture the simultaneous crumpling and withering of a million faces…?
The Picture of Dorian Grey, by Oscar Wilde, conveys this frightening picture. At the story’s end, Grey destroys his mystical portrait, the substitute that has been absorbing the effects of his wanton lifestyle. He has remained strikingly beautiful, but the once-mesmerizing portrait has become hideous. Grey stabs it with a dagger, and the disease and disfigurement absorbed by the portrait rush into Grey… Servants rush in, hearing a scream, and stand horrified over a gruesome, unrecognizable corpse.
These days, I don’t know anyone willing to test the waters of body-soul correlation. Is anyone "ready" to have their soul projected through their body? Maybe I could find a few takers, emboldened by the hypothetical nature of the question. But there’s the rub. Today the question is hypothetical. Things will not always be this way.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Keeping Up Appearances
Filed in: Beauty Death Freedom Questions Speculation
Subscribe to:
or 
or
11 comments:
Excellent. The more "reflection" the better.
Being an INFP(check out the Kiersey Temperement Sorter), I often feel that once I get to know the person, I CAN see their true beauty or ugliness. It's as if their true personality shines through their skin, and "messes up," so to speak, what their physical appearance alone looks like. Once I know someone, I can't think of them as being beautiful if they're really ugly on the inside, and vice versa.
Gustav, it seems like we're approaching the same question, maybe just from slightly different angles. Last month I wrote a 3-act drama based on the very idea you mentioned - "presenting self" vs. the "real person," what I do versus who I am. As you suggested, we begin to stumble all over ourseves when we define each other based on job descriptions and locales...and ultimately such identities ring pretty hollow. But the real person waits inside.
I think you and I digress on one significant point. You "wonder if anyone ever knows who they really are." I see where you're coming from, but I can happily point to a source of identity. As the warrior-king David wrote, "I will give thanks to You, God, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well." (Psalm 139)
I suggest that this is the knowledge our souls are looking for - we are God's creation, made in his image, and therefore endowed with great value and divine purpose.
Apart from the authorship of Christ, I don't believe we can unearth any reliable foundation for "identity"...or even for the sanctity of human life. Instead we search, wonder who we are, why we exist.
What do you think?
I agree with you, ninja. :) Once we see "into" a person, their core being tends to define the way we look at them from then on out. Once we've glimpsed it, the spirit takes precedence.
By the way, that personality sorter is fascinating. As it turns out, I am an "ENFJ" ...a charismatic type who methodically takes over the world. (Or something. ;)
Hi Gustav, don't worry about stepping on my toes. I actually enjoy discussions like this. I think your assertion has one element that can indeed be maintained, and another element that is ultimately self-defeating.
First, here's where I agree. In a closed system, it would be ridiculous for us to search the cosmos for a "god," in actuality making him in OUR image, and then affixing a convenient label: "Worship this." (Whatever we have arbitrarily decided represents the sum of our ideals, dreams, wishes...) We can't fully understand our own minds, let alone coordinate a global god-hunt.
Now here's where I disagree. And this, in fact, follows logically from the last point. God MUST be self-revealed. The burden for "proof," so to speak, rests on God. Not because we've backed him into a corner, but because our human faculties just aren't strong enough to search out the divine.
Stepping off from this proposition, I find myself with a solid moral base for existence. Life's confusion and pain are not without signifiance. I am "walking on water," propelled by gratitude and praise for a merciful God. On the other hand, when you reject the possibility of divine revelation (it seems that you do?) you are forced to sink or swim in the storm waves of universal uncertainty.
To sum up, it surely takes faith to entertain the idea that God may have chosen to "speak" to us. But to steadfastly deny that possibility is likewise an act of "faith." This is the faith of which athiests are made.
Hey! Some of you are formatting your comments. Bold formatting, site links...how ya doin' that?
Hey! Some of you are formatting your comments. Bold formatting, site links...how ya doin' that?
As long as we don't understand our own mind, there is only one way to find your true identity; to fool yourself into thinking you know it.I disagree. Just because I don't know the depths of my own mind completely doesn't mean I can't find my true identity. For one thing, being a follower of Jesus is very uncomfortable on many levels. I'm faced daily with shortcomings of thought, attitude, etc., that I don't think I normally would be if I were not a Christian. Why? Well, think of it like this: people tend to gravitate and surround themselves with others who are like-minded: who hold the same values, feelings, judgements, thought-processes, moral aptitude, etc. But what happens when a "sinner" falls in love with a "saint," someone who is a world apart from him in terms of "goodness?" The sinner is faced with the reality that he falls far short of the other's worth. He realizes that it is not only his actions that have made him unworthy, but the very nature of who he is, the selfish attitudes of his heart that have caused him to live a corrupt life. Being comes before Doing.
It is much that way in our relationship with Christ: we are confronted with a standard of perfection we cannot hope to attain, yet we know we are far below what we could attain. We are continuously faced with the reality that we are not as we should be. It's uncomfortable, but it's true. Yet, as Ariel says, Christ is our Author and Perfector. So, while we flounder in our lack of Being, we do not despair. For the one who is perfect, the one who is the Ultimate Standard of Being, is there to encourage and equip us to be who He intends for us to be. And not only that, He has made up for our lack of Being on the cross; all inadequacies (sp?) are covered in His perfection, and in His perfect sacrifice. His Being, not only in His creation of us, but also in His redemption of us, is what gives us our worth. Anything we do to try to give ourselves worth is grossly inadequate, in light of the standard of perfection. Moreover, He has given us the Holy Spirit which dwells within us, a supplement to our own conscience (which can be dulled and deadened and ignored) to show us the way we should go.
I know to someone who has not experienced this life-altering love, this standard of perfection which does not condemn but seeks to reconcile, may seem altogether foreign and well, silly. But it's the experience of millions of people throughout time. And it's my experience as well. And the pontifications of a thousand philosophers cannot alter that. :)
You may as well tell me my husband does not exist.
Hmm, seems hard to keep the lines of argument from getting snarled in a comment format! I also think part of the problem is that we're making similar statements with very fine distinctions. Well, let the chase continue! :)
What I'm trying to say boils down to one great point of divergence, a la Robert Frost. At the beginning of any conversation like this, one usually brings one of two assumptions to the table.
1) You either believe that the world is an unsolvable riddle, and any allusion to "God" is purely naive and arbitrary...
2) Or you entertain the idea that God does exist, that he is findable, and that there are coherent clues to his identity. (Clues that HE has passed down. In the words of Francis Thompson, "O intangible, we touch thee, O invisible, we see thee...")
(I suppose a third option might be that you just haven't thought deeply about the first two, unintentionally or by choice?)
Either of the two preconceptions require a degree of "faith." There are no experiments to carry out, categorically proving the existence of God, nor his nonexistence.
However, there's no call for people to commit intellectual suicide as they investigate God-claims. In fact, evidence abounds, in a wide variety of mediums: Historical, archeological, logical, scriptural...
I would argue that the "case" for atheism or agnosticism is very weak, to the extent that a God-less worldview, applied logically, becomes thoroughly incoherent.
Meanwhile, those who live a Christ-saturated life have a different story to tell. And whatever your conclusions about "how" or "why" the story is different, there are legitimate lines of causation to consider.
I.e, do you really think someone can experience a radically, observably changed life...merely by "pointing to a yellow circle a child painted on a piece of paper and stating 'sun.'" Positive thinking has never worked so well.
This has been fascinating discussion to follow. (For the few of us involved, anyway...I pity the rest of you! ;)
Well, let me try and get this straight. Gustav, you're not an atheist, so you believe God exists. You also believe God ("It") "is findable," and there are "coherent clues to 'its' identity." Ok, I'm with you so far.
You also think, "Any attempt to put a 'face' on 'God' is purely naive and arbitrary."
Those two conclusions seem mutually exclusive. I don't see how you can believe God 1) is findable and 2) is faceless. How are both supportable? I.e, where exactly are the "coherent clues" leading us? To a blank wall? If that's case there's really no point in "searching." (And you ought to throw up your hands and declare, "Agnostic!")
As for the last point, I guess I simply differ. I've already seen a variety of "intellectual placebos" in my relatively brief life, and they all fail miserably to bring about lasting change. Again, postivive thinking never rewired anyone's soul. "Faithful" mantras merely reduce the practicioner to a semi-conscious stupor. Inferior "gods," having no basis in reality, only break the hearts of their worshippers.
To put it redundantly, empty religion...is empty. Why pretend otherwise?
Oh yeah, MSN. Matter of fact, I am a user. Blogger messages are welcome.
ariellindsay@msn.com
Still on a pathetic dial-up basis.
Post a Comment