“A persona is a portal we’re not conscious of passing by,” my beloved editor Dan Frank wrote in an unpublished poem shortly earlier than the insentient atoms that composed him, this singular and unrepeatable particular person, disbanded to return to the universe. And but regardless of every thing we learn about what occurs to these atoms once we die, the query of how they cohered into an individual — the query of what makes an individual, of how the myriad personae inside constellate the full persona that strikes by the world — remains to be mired in thriller. It’s maybe the best thriller of being alive.
These are the questions that animated the English poet and thinker Richard Lewis Nettleship (December 17, 1846–August 25, 1892), who believed that “the individuality of something is an final reality, behind which we can not go,” however by which we should look in an effort to perceive the sum whole of human expertise.
Persona, Nettleship cautioned an epoch earlier than pop psychology flooded us with platitudes and simplistic persona kind exams, “might be the toughest of all topics, and but it’s one upon which we’re all able to pronounce in probably the most easy-going approach” — pronouncements “terribly imprecise, confused, or insufficient” to the duty of fathoming the scale of an individual. He writes:
We typically assume [the personality] to be a particular, self-contained, unchanging factor, spherical and about which all types of roughly separable and altering appendages confusedly float.
Or it’s one thing “inward,” probably the most inward of all issues, that to which we predict we should always come if we stripped off all of the coats of circumstances, customized, training.
However we quickly notice, on considering, that there isn’t a circle to be drawn spherical anyone, inside which all is “private,” and with out which all is “impersonal.” We notice what could also be referred to as the continuity of issues. What, for example, is a triangle? An area bounded by three straight strains. The place does “it” cease ? On the strains, in fact. However these strains are merely its contact with surrounding area, and the “persona” of the triangle is one factor if the encompassing area be restricted to the web page of a e-book, one other factor if or not it’s prolonged to the room the place the e-book is, one other factor if or not it’s carried on to incorporate the photo voltaic system, and so forth. And although for explicit functions it’s essential to outline the triangle particularly methods, it’s, strictly talking, fairly true that it’s repeatedly one with the spatial universe.
A recognition of this continuity undermines the commonsense definition of an individual as “a physique occupying a sure place, protecting out and in any other case performing on different our bodies.” Nettleship writes:
All people is “steady” with a very good deal greater than (say) the area six toes spherical him and the time an hour on all sides of him. The only reminiscences, hopes, associations, imaginations, inferences, are extensions of persona far larger than we will simply notice. Each “right here” and each “now” is the centre of virtually innumerable “theres” and “thens,” and the centres are completely inseparable from their circumferences.
Loss, separation, loss of life, is failure of continuity. A being which was (so to say) all the time closing up with every thing would change however wouldn’t die.
This, too, is why abandonment — the sudden rupture of continuity in a relationship of belief — is without doubt one of the most physiologically and psychologically devastating experiences a human being can have, for we love with every thing we’re. Maybe probably the most psychologically advanced human expertise, love harmonizes the cacophony of components we stay with into a complete expertise. Its loss, its failure of continuity, due to this fact discomposes the full self — a stark reminder that we will by no means absolutely compartmentalize ourselves. Nettleship considers this fragmentary however indivisible totality:
The self, I, persona, or no matter we wish to name that which experiences issues, is one in all that it experiences: one in seeing, listening to, smelling, and in each modification of those, one in each mixture of those, and in all extra advanced experiences as nicely; it’s this oneness which makes the unanalyzable self-hood of any and each expertise. Alternatively, the self in all its expertise is one of or in many, an expertise of distinctness in innumerable senses. In a phrase, it’s all the time and in every single place a complete of components, a combining and dividing exercise, capable of detach any half from every other half, and but to be in all of them.
This paradox of components parallels the character of actuality itself — to give up to it’s to contact, as physicist David Bohm noticed in investigating the implicate order of the universe, “a deeper actuality during which what prevails is unbroken wholeness.” The self then turns into a portal for passing by to one thing else, one thing bigger and more true. A technology earlier than Iris Murdoch noticed that the triumph of the persona is the act of unselfing, Nettleship writes:
The occasions when one feels one is most really oneself are simply these during which one feels that the consciousness of 1’s personal individuality is most completely swallowed up, whether or not in sympathy with nature or within the bringing to beginning of reality, or in enthusiasm for different males. Thus, the key of life is self-giving.
And so we arrive on the two nice devices of unselfing — loss of life, the top of continuity that returns our borrowed stardust to the universe; and love, which is at backside “the extraordinarily tough realisation that one thing apart from oneself is actual.” Not lengthy earlier than he died of publicity whereas trying a climb of Mont Blanc, Nettleship observes:
Loss of life is self-surrender… Love is the consciousness of survival within the act of self-surrender.
