S is for Selfhood
To authoritatively assume the definition of the self would be absurd. But it is evident that recent discussions regarding its meaning are reflective of our times. Individuality as an isolated unit is no longer interesting. The universal desire to socialize has given emergence to the notion that individuality is found within a crowd of individuals. In modern biology, we find that life is the result of mergers that occurred between our evolutionary predecessors in the bacterial world. In physics, we learn in the book, Into the Cool, by scientist Eric D. Schneider, and science writer Dorion Sagan, that selfhood is not stable, but metastable as an open, energetic system of flux and flows. The understanding that the self is not fixed, but a continuum of energy is one of the lion’s roars of Buddhist teachings that states: There is no self. Meaning, under analysis, the self cannot be found, it is not a static state of being, but a constant state of creation. The most simple example, as explained by scholar Robert Thurman, is illustrated by using a pen to put a dot on a piece of paper and realizing what you have drawn is a tiny circle. A self: a circle of possibilities interdependent upon the processes of life. Notwithstanding, the core tenet of individuality remains consistent as the individual becomes creator, producer and audience, acting as node in the network. And while it’s evident that our sense of self has expanded as we traverse worlds within worlds inside digital terrains, the challenge, it seems, is not to become too entangled by homogenization and evaporate. As rocker-philosopher Keith Richards says: “Everybody is brought up these days to think that everybody is average. Nobody is average. Everybody is themselves. It’s called individuality. We are born different, and the thing is, you have to find out your own thing.”