Being Seen

Louis XIV felt a great responsibility to make the French royalty the model of grandeur and exactitude. The court rituals were elaborate and, to our removed perspective, quite ridiculous. Hundreds of courtiers lived at Versailles and were required to be present when the King arose and got dressed, when he ate, at mass, at performances, and all other court functions. The main purpose was that the king was to be seen. This was the key of Louis XIV's reign. To be seen was to be great.

Oscar Wilde said that "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." I've been thinking about this desire, even need, that we all have to be seen and be judged by others. We work hard at presenting ourselves in the right way in order to meet an artificial standard. Our society is based on this idea as in the pressure to publish at universities, political campaigns, mayors cutting ribbons, business suits and the ostentatious display of wealth. I think we feel a need to "play the part" which our culture or surroundings prescribe.
I notice in myself that I always want all the good things that I do to be seen but of course not any of the bad things. I want people to see me playing the piano, doing this kind act, etc. Why? Does the pleasure that I derive from playing Chopin increase if others see it. I understand the value in sharing talents but I am just wondering at motivations for doing things. I'm guessing that the most important thing probably is how we act when we are not seen. This quote by Emerson seems to fit here:
"We pass for what we are. Character teaches above our wills. Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment." (Self-Reliance)

Experiences

"In short, since true fortitude of understanding consists "in not letting what we know be embarrassed by what we do not know," we ought to secure those advantages which we can command, and not risk them by clutching after the airy and unattainable. Come, no chimeras! Let us go abroad; let us mix in affairs; let us learn and get and have and climb. "Men are a sort of moving plants, and, like trees, receive a great part of their nourishment from the air. If they keep too much at home, they pine." Let us have a robust, manly life; let us know what we know, for certain; what we have, let it be solid and seasonable and our own. A world in the hand is worth two in the bush. Let us have to do with real men and women, and not with skipping ghosts." (Emerson, "Montaigen: or a skeptic")

I do not want to turn this blog into some sort of shrine to Emerson but the man just speaks to me. When I read one of his essays he seems to hit on exactly what I'm thinking about at that time and express it in a very eloquent manner. This excerpt from an essay on the skepticism of Michel de Montaigne basically hits on exactly my feelings between thought and action. I've realized that a lot of the necessary things we need to learn in life must be obtained through doing. I believe that it is through mixing "in affairs" that we learn quickest. I love Utah and BYU but I am looking forward to following Emerson's advice and seeking to have "a world in the hand" and not "two in the bush."

Unmündigkeit

"Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen."
(Immaturity is the inability to use one's own reason without the guidance of others)

"Satzungen und Formeln, diese mechanischen Werkzeuge eines vernünftigen Gebrauchs oder vielmehr Mißbrauchs seiner Naturgaben, sind die Fußschellen einer immerwährenden Unmündigkeit." (Kant, Was ist Aufklärung?)
(Rules and formulas, those mechanical aids to the rational use, or rather misuse, of his natural gifts, are the shackles of a permanent immaturity.)

This essay, and especially these quotes hit me really hard. Many different applications came to mind, and although I know there is a specific historical context, I think it is important to apply truth to ourselves.
To me, these ideas are equivalent to what God says in Hebrews 8: 10-11:
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their chearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
When we are spiritually mature enough to rely on revelation and experience we become more independent and more mature. This does not mean prophets become obsolete; not at all. It means that we are better able to use the tools God has given us to make the decisions which will result in the greatest happiness. Personally, I see that I must improve greatly in this area for I often try to pry advice and guidance out of others when I myself am in the best position to make such decisions. There is a balance however. There are times when it is wisdom to listen to others who may know more than us. Ultimately, though, we are responsible.

Mauvaise foi

We humans often, according to Sartre, deny an absolute freedom that we have by forcing ourselves into acting a certain way because of outside influences such as religion and culture. This to him is "bad faith."

I've always been fascinated by this idea. To what degree does my cultural background, religious or otherwise, determine the things I do. I remember that one of the most frustrating things to encounter as a missionary were people who dismissed you because they said you were brainwashed. It is such an unfair argument! I don't dismiss though the reality of letting ourselves kind of be moved along by predetermined patterns of thought and actions. While my belief and knowledge in my faith remain secure I find it refreshing sometimes to go back to square one and ask myself, "why do I believe this?" I often have the most uplifting scripture studies as I look at basic principles in this light.

Too Much Thought

"Our age is bewailed as the age of Introversion. Must that needs be evil? We, it seems, are critical; we are embarrassed with second thoughts; we cannot enjoy any thing for hankering to know whereof the pleasure consists; we are lined with eyes; we see with our feet; the time is infected with Hamlet's unhappiness, —

'Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.' "(Emerson, "The American Scholar")

While I echo Emerson in defending Introversion (being interested in one own's mental life) I have noticed, however, that sometimes thinking too hard can be detrimental to present peace and happiness. If "we cannot enjoy any thing for hankering to know whereof the pleasure consists" then we miss out on the point of Introversion. As Elder Maxwell said concerning how we view our personal happiness "if we open the oven too often to see if the cake is done, it falls instead of rises." For example, I found myself today in church getting a bit anxious about possibly becoming less spiritual as my time is consumed with things such as school and other things. I realized quickly though that my worrying was irrational and self-centered. It would not solve the problem. Only engaging oneself in life and service solves the problem. So while I affirm the importance of pensiveness, I wish to be someone who is inspired by ideas but preoccupied with action.

Skepticism

"We should never make any permanent commitment to any doctrines but instead assume a perpetual attitude of inquiry. Contentment, said Montaigne, is possible only when we achieve a tranquility of mind. What disturbs this tranquility is the attempt to go beyond our ordinary experiences and penetrate the inner nature of things. The saddest spectacle of all is to find people formulating final answers on questions that are far too subtle and variable for such treatment. The final folly of this attempt is the attitude of fanaticism and dogmatism." (Commentary on the Skepticism of the French political philosopher Montaigne)

I have always been troubled by the fact that I can never seem to arrive at, or adopt, absolute political or social conclusions. I consider myself somewhat engaged and well-informed (at least more than average) in such questions. Yet I find myself frequently dissatisfied with both sides of an argument or often persuaded easily by the latest argument I hear. Social Welfare States vs. Privatization for example is one question that seems to offer no final answer as to which one is more conducive to the production of wealth and security of the individual. Reading this quote made me feel better about not being able to claim clairvoyance and finality on such topics. I can continually seek answers and not necessarily have to come down on one side or the other. This attitude, however, cannot apply to spiritual matters where we affirm the ability to arrive at absolute truth. Not that we can't arrive at absolute truth in secular matters as well, just that our approach must be more open to changing knowledge.