The very first lie is "I". It is the first sign of separation and alienation. It is the first sign of personal realization and self-conception. It is the primary judgment of intellect. "I" refers to an entity, a theing (later a thing) derived from being. "I" is the subject, the unique, individuated reference point of consciousness. "I" is distinct, definable, differentiated, named, localized and addressed in many ways. "I" can be numbered, cataloged and recalled, referred to at will by oneself or others. "I" is a "part" in the hardware of Reality, an embodied concept such as doctor, attorney, banker, lawn man, housewife, worker, etc. "I" is usually conceptualized by oneself and others by the role one plays in Reality.
I remember reading that the ancient Egyptians had a theory about seeing with two kinds of eyes, one above the other. I now understand this. The two eyes however were really referring to the two "I's", the two forms of being. The "left I" refers to the person, the intellectually generated conceptual entity known as 'the person', the conceptual entity individuated by his/her name, address and various identifying numbers. It is generated by the left side of the brain in most people. The person is the entity of conceptual thought and symbolic language which 'exists' in the world of Reality.
The "right I" refers to "me", the form of "I" generated by Analogos or right brain. This is the intuitive "I" that feels, senses, experiences in terms of emotions and spontaneous images of various sorts. This right-sided "I" refers to 'me', the human being, the creature of intuitive sense, of feelings and emotions, of heart and soul. This 'being' is in the world of Actuality.
A person is characterized by the part he/she plays in the Shakespearean play or the action one is responsible for in Reality. One "becomes" his part in classical existentialist fashion, at first studying medicine, then "becoming a doctor" and finally "being a doctor", being referred to "as" Doctor, thinking of oneself "as" a doctor, and referring to oneself "as" Dr. Jones. And, please, Dr. ANTHONY J. JONES so as not to be undifferentiated and unindividuated and confused with Dr. ARNOLD J. JONES! "I", Dr. X. Jones, exist in the world of Reality. I, Dr. X. Jones, has ontological status in the world of Reality. I am understood by all to now "be" Dr. X. Jones, man of intelligence, talent, skill and responsibility, deserving of status and recognition. I present myself, I dress appropriately to demonstrate "who I am" and what I am about. I am neat, clean, well-dressed as the occasion demands, with my white coat and Dr.'s pin, my tie, stethoscope, car, matching wife and house. These are almost demanded of me by those who are largely responsible for this part I now play, for the creation of this role. For this role existed even when I was a boy. It was my initial project, set up by THEM, in advance, in anticipation, with forethought and without malice. There were ways to "become" a doctor in Reality, methods laid out like streets one had to follow. There were public airs and attitudes toward "doctors" which, to a young boy and man, seemed good and desirable. One even found himself encouraged down some of these preexisting paths to doctorhood, lawyerhood, businessman, even Mafia crook, by the power of those surrounding you, telling you what you should "become" when you get big, instilling attitudes in you unspoken and unrealized until they blossomed into adult behavior. They told you how to become valuably individuated from the yolk sac of pure potential to something of recognized value to other members of the herd.
Simply recanting the above by virtue of intellect which interprets and translates sensational, phenomenal experience into concepts and language seems to be casting a negative and critical net over the whole works by means of which the ORGANISM, the group, produces members who care for other members when they are injured or ill. There seems nothing wrong with this in Actuality. But this is one of the unfortunate properties of intellect, namely, that its simplest function of description seem inherently critical and this alone is a negative to Actuality. Why? For it seems unwanted by God, Nature or The-Powers-That-Be to be so examined, analyzed and criticized.
This is what we are up against. The inherently contrary attitude of Logos to Analogos, the inherently antagonistic relationship between Logos and Analogos by virtue of being two simultaneously operating judgmental systems making judgments for only one body. Both should cooperate and usually do. But, like the fabled two brothers, Cain and Able, and like my own two sons, Michael and Nicholas, they frequently fight. And the serious fighting of two entities so closely related carries with it an ugliness and a foreboding that exceeds normal conflict with external or foreign forces.
The conflict and envy between our two selves, our Actual Self and our Conceptual Self (Real Self) is told in allegory by Moses as the story of Cain and Able. On a larger scale, the ultimate battle within the individual between the forces of his own Logos and Analogos, and the societal battle between the collective forces of Logos and Analogos are referred to as the Battle of Armageddon in the Bible. It is the universal battle that goes on in the mind of every human being. The allegory foretells the victory of Analogos and a return of man to a more natural and brutish state, closer to God, but less conscious of it, like my dog. As Moses knew all along, the Promised Land was always the wilderness - and heaven is a transient state of being!
A. Iosue
table of contents