I'm reading Straw Dogs by John Gray at the moment. It's a book that was recommended to me years ago by my friend Katie Lou, after I'd read two other of his books - Al Quaeda and What it Means To Be Modern, and Feline Philosophy. Katie Lou had told me that Straw Dogs had made her happy-go-lucky friend lie face down on the floor after reading the first chapter. It was then that I knew I wanted to read it. And when I found it in a second-hand book store I bought it, and knew I'd read it soon.
The central argument of the book is that progress is an illusion, and there - in truth - is no such thing as human progress. Instead, this is a myth that we have told ourselves, ever since the beginnings of Christianity and other abrahamic religions.
We - in our infinite self-centredness - think we are in control of the world. And that the world is something we can bend to our whims. We do this in both the destructive and conservative attitudes towards our planet. Environmentalists convince themselves that we need to save the planet, that we are killing the planet. In reality - John Gray argues - this is just another aspect of our selfcentredness and need for selfpreservation. We don't want to save the planet, we want to preserve human existence on the planet. Whether we are here or not, the planet will go on existing.
The first chapter weaves up to this central idea, and to a quote from the Tao Te Ching (an ancient Taoist scripture) that the book is named after: 'Heaven and Earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs(1).' Or in John Gray's own words 'If humans disturb the balance of the Earth they will be trampled on and tossed aside.' It is Gray's argument that we view ourselves as so important to the fabric of everything, and that we can't face that we are nothing but a blip in the existence of the universe.
I just finished the second chapter entitled 'Self Deception'. The general crux of it being that we are unable to know ourselves, to make sense of our perceptions, and that we think we are more in control of our actions than we actually are. One detail I found interesting, was the fact that we act milliseconds before making any concious decision, despite thinking that the decision comes first. And in this way we live in a world of illusions where our best intentions are out of our control.
One idea - which this chapter ends with - which I can get on board with is that accepting that we are in an illusory, dream world is more grounded and realistic than pretending we are not. (There is the pretending again.) It brings up an account of Chuang-Tzu, which I'll let Ezra Pound's translation illustrate instead of me:
So-shu dreamed,
And having dreamed that he was a bird , a bee, and a butterfly,
He was uncertain why he should try to feel like anything else,
Hence his contentment.
We spend so much of our lives trying to make sense of our selves. But our selves are illusions. We do not even know who we are. And I think there are times when we try to fence ourselves into a certain style, a certain routine, a certain way of talking. Maybe so we make more sense to ourselves, but mostly so we make more sense to other people.
I found myself thinking of Claudia Winkleman when reading this chapter - who decided on, and stuck to, her current distinctive look years and years and years ago. I'm not saying she has less or more of a sense of self than other people. More, that she has found a way of controlling one aspect of her self. Or even simplifying one aspect of herself, so that the more important things can be attended to. I find myself envying this outwards consistency, but it might just be my desire to leave the dream-world that I inhabit, and make a reality that is more based in, well, reality.
The cynic (myself) might call this 'branding'. Really, all branding is, is a way to make yourself simpler to others, so you can more effectively sell yourself to them. A messy life, a messy presentation, dis-organised influences, might be the antethesis of this self-branding. (And moreover an attempt at self-knowing).
And this has made me think of an an article I read the other day titled 'be more confusing actually'. It argues for taking on multiple contradictory hobbies at a time, not worrying if they fit some imagined goal. The author, Michelle Pellizzon Lipsitz says this:
Real humans are weird and contradictory. They have random obsessions that don't fit their "brand." They go through phases. They abandon hobbies and pick them back up years later. They contain multitudes, and those multitudes don't need to have a coherent narrative thread.
And maybe this is close to what John Gray is getting at. Or that's the way I see it anyway. You can try and find the rational explanation that tells you that you are not a butterfly. Or you can just accept that dream as a butterfly is a part of your reality.
(1)Full straw dog explanation from John Gray's book 'In ancient Chinese rituals, straw dogs were used as offerings to the gods. During the ritual they were treated with the utmost reverence. When it was over and they were no longer needed they were trampled on and tossed aside.'
Today's links are on the same subject. Of sense of self and our imagined sense of self: