Page 1 of 27

The Search and Struggle for the self

Kamalini Martin

Abstract
In this article, I discuss the curious phenomenon of the elusive human self. The primal instinct,
the first and the most powerful force, is to live as a distinct individual being. To know one’s
self is a process by which the living being. the self or the power behind that which seeks to
comprehend, which is the mind, is sought. Since there is no satisfactory way to “know” the
self from within the mind, it is then sought, also unsuccessfully, in personal identity, through
human reflection and recognition. The self as mind is first modeled here, in six levels where
knowledge, absorbed as meaning and significance, is used in human living. The seventh level
is described in the second part of the paper as a new level of identity, and is described as the
very ground of being, the reference, reality and standard of perfection. This level can transform
all the remaining six, by providing fullness of life in reality with consequent clarity of vision,
and freedom of will. Accessibility to this new level, and through it to an inner world is the
gospel brought to all humanity by Jesus Christ.

The seventh level is typically seen either as a threat of dominion to be rejected, or an

opportunity for life to be accepted. Although access is freely offered, the self finds
contradictions, opposition and struggle in recognizing and absorbing its own identity. The self
is blinded and bound by itself, divided and fearful of death. Rejection means that the sixth
level sees nothing above it. Acceptance needs readjustment of key values and references, and
results in complete regeneration, self knowledge and self growth. This struggle to recognize
and accept the seventh level and its benefits are described in the third part of the article.

Introduction
The idea of a “self” is unique, essential and characteristic of humanity. But it is also the most
difficult to understand – questions like What am I and who am I? Have been discussed by the
greatest thinkers of all ages, in all parts of the world with strikingly different but curiously
unsatisfactory answers. In this article, the question explored is How shall I find/see/know my
self?

The motto “Know thyself” 1, interpreted as “learn to know your self” had profound
significance for early philosophers, and implies that there is a great mystery in this process and
a great advatage to be gained by achieving it. The mystery lies both in the “knowing” process
and in the concept and reality of what is called the “self”. The two short words encompass all
of philosophy, “know” directing epistemology and “thyself” directing ontology.
1

Philosophers of earlier ages have much to say in this area, for example Berkeley2,
 Page 2 of 27

"Such is the nature of spirit, or that which acts, that it cannot be of itself perceived, but
only by the effects which it produceth.... ....besides all [the] endless variety of [our] ideas
or objects of knowledge, there is likewise something which knows or perceives them;
and exercises diverse operations, [such] as willing, imagining, remembering, about
them. This perceiving, active being is what I call mind, spirit, soul or myself." ,

In the current trend, information on the internet resources, Wikipedia3 states:

In philosophy, the self is the idea of a unified being which is the source of an
idiosyncratic consciousness. Moreover, this self is the agent responsible for the
thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed. It is a substance, which
therefore endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of
time may pertain to the same self (John Locke’s theory of consciousness as the basis of
personal identity4). Other broader understandings of Self place it to mean the essence of
any living being. With this understanding, Self is the hand of God or the expression of
life that makes any living entity inherently unique.

Locke's account of personal identity appealed to what seems a crucial condition of moral
agency, namely, self-reflective consciousness, attributes of responsibility, persistence and
expression. It is generally accepted that mind and self are closely related, surprisingly more so
than self and body. The scientific community emphasises thinking and reasoning as the
princple mental phenomenon although recently, the criterion of intelligence is giving way to
consciousness, emergence, phenomenology and subjective experience. However “ being” as
intimately connected with knowledge and truth remains a perennially fresh and open question.

Scientific striving for knowledge has never been more strongly defended, yet the paradox at
the heart of the work is becoming more evident. The more we learn, the further the true subject
recedes. The more is learned about how the brain works, the less this knowledge can be tied up
with how it feels to have a brain - to be, to feel one’s self living, feeling and thinking. The
human functions may all be simulated perfectly but the essence of humanity is curiously
indefinable as well as unmistakable. The danger of believing that the distinguishing mark of
humanity is computation or intelligence or even consciousness is not that it causes us to
misunderstand machines, but that it makes us misunderstand our own nature.

Edmund Husserl5 used noetic (from noesis) to refer to the intentional act of consciousness
(believing, willing, hating and loving ...)- but the word noetic, from the Greek νοῦς ( nous) is
usually translated as "mind", "understanding", "intellect", or "reason". Most dictionaries define
the term noetic as a synonym of "mental" or "intellectual". The development of Western
thought, for various reasons good and bad, dissociated the ground of knowing, the living being
or subject, from the object of knowledge. The object of knowledge became the concern of the
 Page 3 of 27

newly developing scientific fields and the subject of knowing, the being became the concern of
the field of metaphysics, and religion. In the scientific field, the individual knower, the self
with its knowing mind was explicitly suppressed as a probable source of error through bias.
Descartes6, and many others developed the idea that the objects exist on their own, and can
(only) be known as they (really) are if the self observes them from a distance and not interfere
with them with its subjectivity. The disconnected objects thus independent of the knower
could be observed and verified through consensus Thus current opinion takes knowledge as
produced (only) by veridical and objective thinking, logic, language and rationality or intellect
which is distinct from subjective experience, consciousness and intuitive knowledge.

Religion and mysticism emphasized that the ground of Being, or monotheistically the divine
presence, is mysterious and inherently unknowable. At this point there is a problem of
definition, since knowing in this context indicates analytical thinking or rational thought. The
Bible proclaims God as knowable through living experience - from the revelation to Moses to
the Incarnation, through all the law and the prophets (Isa. 65:1,2), both the Old and the New
testaments (Rev 3:20) speak of God’s presence within human knowledge. But this experience
of God is antithetical to logical and scientific or experimental kind of inquiry: God is not an
external object or a human concept to be test and verified for existence, nor is His pledge to be
checked for validity as if He were an untrustworthy person.

The philosopher Hegel describes the basic unity of science and religion at the only possible
meeting point, the human personality. His work is lucidly explained7 as follows:
Therefore when Reality is even considered as being Personal, which is what we mean
when we speak of the Absolute as God, it may seem like a fairytale and something totally
outside the realm of scientific thought. However, nothing could be further from the Truth
and, in fact, Science, as we learn from reading Hegel, is rather that which necessarily
leads to a Reality that must be Personal. Indeed, such a personalistic conclusion becomes
the litmus test of the validity of any systematic thought as being scientific.
The gradual development of knowing,.
When we doubt what we know, we are doubting our knowledge of things. This doubt
also affects what is known because the known belongs to that knowledge. Thus the
'known' (object) is never independent of knowledge. If knowledge changes then what is
known also changes, for the known is only what it is for knowledge. Yet at the same time
we also consider the 'known' to be an object confronting knowledge or something that
has being-in-itself independent of knowledge. We can see why ordinary thinking ignores
'knowing' or knowledge in considering the relation between the knower and known - it
complicates things considerably. What was considered a simple object is now actually
seen as a contradiction. It is both in-itself as an object confronting knowing, and it is also
bound up with knowing or for-consciousness, that is,. it is within consciousness as what
 Page 4 of 27

is known. Thus it is both in-itself and for-another simultaneously - it is both independent

and dependent (on the knower). This is the object's contradictory nature - it is
simultaneously both being-in-itself and being-for-another

Is this paradox in the verifiability of the object or of knowledge, or its relation to reality?
Francis Bacon8 found that
“The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and
discolours the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it.”
What is truth? If it is a proposition, concept or idea, it is produced by a “being” and therefore
dependent on being. If truth is being, it cannot be adequately translated into thought. Philip
Goodchild 9 writes, “According to the Cartesian hypothesis, if thought is independent from
being, then a true proposition remains true independently of whether it can be known or
demonstrated. Yet what remains truly extraordinary is that no beings are known or
demonstrated independently of thinking.… thought cannot produce being – for being, being
independent of thought, is not produced by thought.” In this context, knowledge could be
termed the bridge between reality and thought.

Thus there are three aspects to 'knowing' - knower, knowing (knowledge) and the known.
When 'knowing' is transparent it means that the knower immediately apprehends the known as
if 'knowing' were merely an invisible medium between knower and known, that is, as if there
were no contribution from knowing in the apprehension of what is known. But in the process
of knowing, there is a transformation of being into thought, there is a inexplicable
transmutation whereby the (real, known) object becomes a (representation in a knowing)
subject. Furthermore, this representation said to exist in the mind, as a purely mind dependent
framework whose content refers to conceptual and inferential capacities10. In particular when
the known is not simply an external non living artifact but another living being this knowledge
is somewhat confused.

In this article, this view of knowledge as the meeting point between reality and the mind is
termed the perceptual problem since there is frequently a difficulty is distinguishing the real
from unreal. This forms typical part-whole paradox where each is seen within the other and
cannot be distinguished from the other. The mind as whole, contains the object as part during
the process of knowing (Brentano’s11 view that all mental phenomena have objects is
sometimes called ‘Brentano’s thesis’ or the thesis that intentionality is the ‘mark’ of the mental)
while the object being independent of the mind contains more than what is translated into
thought.

Typically, “I” am located and contained within my environment but what I know of the
environment is restricted to the model of the environment contained within my mind. “I”
 Page 5 of 27

cannot be an object for my own intellectual inquiry, but “I” must know my self. Self as being
is a dynamic and growing entity continuously interacting with the environment and itself. The
paradox here is typical of the cause-effect circle, where beginning and end cannot be
distinguished from each other. Leibnitz’s 12 concept of an individual substance includes once
for all everything which can ever happen to it … just as we are able to see in the nature of a
circle all the properties which can be derived from it, and
Henri Bergson13 “The present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the
effect was already in the cause.”

Since self cannot be completely captured by mind, the most natural method of self-knowledge
appears to be what is gained through social interaction, a type of self-consciousness which has
been described by many philosophers as “reflection” and “recognition”.

Part 1 postulates a tentative model of the human mind as six levels of knowledge used in daily
life. The seventh level is described in the second part of the paper as life in reality, the ground
of being and identity and is described as the reference, reality and standard of perfection. The
struggle to recognize the seventh level and to accept it is described in the third part of the
paper. The struggle is essential as it reshapes the self and redefines values. The importance of
stamina and continuous commitment to the new values, and the paradoxic effortlessness of
perfection concludes the paper.

Part1
The mind and the self
Absolute, reality that is independent of individual observer or indeed of all existence is
sometimes thought to be beyond reach. A counter claim by B.H. Streeter14 is that “life is of the
enduring substance of Reality”. Is the self real? It certainly appears to be, but this appearance
lasts only as long as there is physical life. Is physical life the sum total of reality then? The
materialists and the reductionists heartily agree. In this concept “knowing” or knowledge is
also spelt out as an emergent from complex dynamical processes partly arising from physical
constituents of the brain and partly from random external events or external events caused by
other physical processes. This appears perfectly reasonable, and the only problem is the
intuitive but strenuous rejection from the self itself. Each of us has the experience of being a
self. Recently, approaches based on subjective experience, and theories of first person have
been developing views of personal identity. None of the theories is both necessary and
sufficient to define a “self”

Self as knowledge
As a starting point of discussion and assuming that the knowledge of the self can be modeled at
least for practical purposes, as a table of levels, we proceed as follows:
 Page 6 of 27

Table 1
Self as Description in terms of Effect of activation Evaluation
criterion
Core Implicit or Motivational Self control and Depth of
knowledge knowledge : Setting of intention, self :determination commitment and
Meaning - directivity, attitude, values, drives self involvement
More Tacit or Basis knowledge: Origin and end of all Intensity of
subjective Reference framework, vehicle and actions: experience satisfaction
and active ground of knowing : (global as in maturity
workspace)
Intrinsic Introspection, Insight, Imagination, Interpretation, Breadth of vision
knowledge memory, simulation, emulation, pattern matching, and human
– inner empathy integration understanding
constructio Innate or self-formative Emotional Comfort (pain
n and knowledge : understanding of intelligence : avoidance, pursuit
working emotion and feeling relationships of profit) and
Discernment.
Extrinsic functional knowledge “For” (how “How to” Usefulness and
Knowledge to). Knowledge of rule, law, energy, discrimination, power
More mechanism and motive behind the relevance,
objective appearance judgement
and passive Acquired knowledge “Of” (what is). Rational intelligence Attention,
Perceptual, Phenomenal and : Analysis, Sharpness & focus
experiential and sensed knowledge: classification, order of picture
resolution

Knowledge is discussed as extrinsic, intrinsic knowledge and as meaning. Each of these is

further split into two - the (dynamic) perceptual content of mental representation and the
mental process that works with/on it - to give six levels of knowledge. This is purely artificial.
Knowledge can be organized in one or two levels or in hundreds of interacting sub classes. In
this model, the acquired knowledge level is the one which is closest to that in the mind which
deals with the external world. It is therefore the most “distant” from the core self and so is the
most “objective” part of the mind. Similarly the meaning levels are the closest to the core self
and therefore the most subjective. As knowledge of the environment is built up through various
interactions and experiences, the inherent knowledge (of the self) is simultaneously, and
mainly unconsciously, built up. Meaning appears to be the unifier as well as the controller of
knowledge.
 Page 7 of 27

The analogy of computation is most popular in extrinsic acquired knowledge. This

encompasses several layers of translation, from physical sensation into something that appears
to be analogous to the information or data structures of the computer. This knowledge is the
transformation of reality into representation. Schopenhauer15 discusses this in his principles of
sufficient reason as four classes of objects in the world: representations of "real” objects,
concepts, space and time and finally, human action. More recently, David Chalmers 16
advocates “a form of impure, nonreductive, narrow, Fregean representationalism” for
experience, with respect to consciousness and intentionality. This knowledge is dynamic,
continually adapting both to incoming signals from the external world, and inner pressures of
thinking.

Continuing the computation analogy, the next level includes the potential and actual use of all
knowledge as representation and content, during a transformation process. This is conventional
cognition, the basic rational intelligence which processes content and explains “how to”
questions, giving the power of application to learning. The logical thought processes however
do not explain more than the form / structure of answers to “why” questions so that
conclusions drawn would be “meaningless” without higher levels of knowledge.

Humans are governed more by emotion than reason- this is often considered the justification
for “objective” thinking which distances the object to be known from the knowing process.
Thus only emotionally neutral representations and processes can be considered objective. The
largest part of human life being intensely (if unconsciously) emotional, the power to translate
and manipulate emotions in self and other humans remains the most effective means to
successful life.

The entire human understanding rests on “meaning”, which is obviously impossible to define,
being self-referencing in terminology. Every part of knowledge, extrinsic, intrinsic, acquired,
inherent etc., is soaked in meaning. For instance, for a person swimming in a sea, the sight of
a triangular fin spells danger. The same little black triangle on the top of a bus, say, would give
rise to an entirely different association and inference. What is happening here? The mind seems
to attach importance, relevance and value to knowledge. Intuitively, the more useful the
knowledge in relation to self preservation and self growth, the more is the value attached to it.

Knowledge exists as meaning in the innermost part of the self model. Only meaning can set
goals and define attitudes and dispositions of a self. Thus exercise of will as deliberate
intention is not so much a simple point of decision to act as the association of firm meaning to
the effect to be achieved through the act. “Unintentional” acts have far less prize or penalty
than intentional ones. Much of meaning is inextricably intertwined with emotion. Core
emotion (fear, joy, love, hate) is usually unreachable and uncontrollable. Any external event
 Page 8 of 27

that “touches” meaning for example human communication, which is perceived as threat or
achievement/promise to self existence provokes “reactive” or immediate, action that is
sometimes surprising to the more deliberate “thinking” self. A person who wounds the self
provokes anger – note that the action to retaliate physically may be controlled but the anger is
mot modified. Even if suppressed, and perhaps, especially when suppressed, the emotion
continues to be active within the self. In this process, since the offender, or the opposing
person’s self cannot be seen the self substitutes its own model of the other’s motives and self to
“make sense” of the situation. Thus a teacher say, who is trying to correct the behaviour of two
pupils could viewed in entirely different ways depending on the nature (self) of each..

Division, Shredding and dissolution of the self

It is a sad fact that the human self does not function as an integrated whole yet the strongest
emergent property of consciousness is that it is unified. Minsky17 wrote of a “society” of mind,
a multitude of different capacities, processes, functions, conflicting goals, values and purposes.
Whenever mental functions conflict in goals, actions and values, self destruction is just as
inherent as self construction.
Kant emphasized what he called the synthetic unity of apperception. By this he meant
that the unity of the self (the self that is gotten by this superimposed awareness) is made,
not automatically given. The unity of the self is stitched together out of the series of
momentary glimpses of self-awareness, which also explains why the self can become
unraveled 18 and
The central concerns of [psychoanalytic] patients nowadays are not so much the
conflicts between their instincts and society but the cohesion of their selves. 19

The insatiable self :Dissatisfaction

Endless looping in a circle results when beginning cannot be distinguished from an end, cause
from effect, potential from fulfillment. Unfortunately for the human self, there appears to be a
drastic problem at the top level. There is no clear controllable feature for motivation, as the
intensity of satisfaction resulting from ANY goal achievement makes it is indistinguishable
from the motivation of the goal itself. The goal now repeats endlessly resulting in addictive
behaviour

A typical example arises in the (conscious) exercise of the will. As Nevius20 describes,
…in the long run a man will act in accordance with his character. …it is the strongest
desire that determines action; but it is the desire at the moment of action. What makes
one desire appeal more strongly than another? Certainly something in the man himself.
To the determinist this "something" is what he was before the act has presented itself,
something that is the result of predisposition and of the total effect of environment up to
the moment of action. To the indeterminist, it is something that comes into being at the
 Page 9 of 27

instant of the choice itself; and it is this power of making himself anew . . . unfettered
even by his previous self, which more than all else constitutes him a moral being. The
acts flow from the self; but this self is a self-created self.

Self as … nothing?
In the above model all that impinges on a human being is seen and known only though the
mind. In the process of interacting with the environment, a self is also created and maintained
by the mind. This is paradoxical. What lies behind the model that enables the process of
formation? Many philosophers claim there is nothing. The existence of personal identity is a
metaphysical illusion21. Metzinger22, says, “No such things as selves exist in the world. What
we have been calling "the" self in the past is not a substance, an unchangeable essence or a
thing (i.e., an "individual" in the sense of philosophical metaphysics), but a very special kind
of representational content”

“Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” says Sartre23,
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater
consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes
before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it.
That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by
saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters
himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the
existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will
not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.

But it is clear that all of this self definition is a only a representation of a self. It is not the
living self. That is to say, the life that, by being and making, gives rise to the mind, knowledge
and knowing, is not captured within the mind. Rather it is the mind which exists within the
living self. For instance, there is no criterion on intensity of satisfaction, the highest
motivating factor of the mind. In actual life, a devotion to satisfying desires in order to build up
the self frequently leads to addiction and subsequent break down of the self.

Heidegger24 endorses this view, (my italics)

All attempts are futile which seek to make representational thinking which remains
metaphysical, and only metaphysical, effective and useful for immediate action in
everyday public life. The more thoughtful our thinking becomes and the more adequate it
is to the involvement of Being in it, the purer our thinking will stand eo ipso in the one
action appropriate to it: recalling what is meant for it and thus, in a sense, what is already
meant.
But who still recalls what is meant? One makes inventions.
 Page 10 of 27

Meaning
Meaning is not recalled for action except when the process which produced the action is
deliberately given attention. Such attention is a separation in level, according to Higher order
thought theory. An ability to monitor one’s thought implies that the self is at a higher level
than the thought. In this reading, consciousness of thought is at a higher level than thought.
But monitoring alone does not give meaning.

Meaning arises from living experience and this supports Sartre’s evolving essence of
personhood. Finally Berdyaev25 elevates the position of humanity through meaning, “Man (is
understood) as a symbol between two worlds: meaning cannot be defined at the same level;
the meaning of a symbol in one world is to be found in the other; Man as a symbol of divinity
has a precise and absolute meaning and significance”. This is true as long as a human being
remains between the two worlds, Physical (ultimate illusion, nothingness from which creation
was brought forth and is evolving), and Spiritual (ultimate reality, the goal and aim of
perfection in being). Life for this being is truly paradoxical, since is partakes of both worlds
and belongs to neither. The process between the potential to be, and the fulfillment of that
potential is being.
A.N.Whitehead’s26 philosophy is that only the (dynamic) process is reality. In his imposing
Process and Reality, Whitehead goes so far “as to suggest that process, rather than substance,
should be taken as the fundamental metaphysical constituent of the world.”

The conclusion seems to be that the self, arising from nothing makes a model of itself through
living experience, knowing and meaning, while reality is in the process of making.

Knowledge and life: Survival and recognition

How can a “nothing” make “something” of itself? The scientific answer is the “the process”.
What energizes the process then? The only possibility is the ineradicable driving force for life
that guides all creation which is more fundamental than experience, emotion and intelligence.
The model is completed only by adding life.

Proverbs 8 describes wisdom crying out to humanity, offering life. Verses 22-38 describe the
nature and the eternity of wisdom, which is to be desired for the blessedness it brings.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set
up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was….. For whoso findeth me
findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me
wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
 Page 11 of 27

The core element in evolution is the phenomenon of survival. This desperate, reckless,
passionate and uncontrollable force to live governs all life. Schopenhauer 27 explains “The
thing-in-itself, the will-to-live, exists whole and undivided in every being, even in the tiniest; it
is present as completely as in all that ever were, are, and will be, taken together.” This is not a
conscious intent to live - the will actually operates by originating and shaping the organism
before the emergence of thought, desire, intent, purpose. Since the will is more fundamental
than reason or consciousness, it even precedes desire. This shaping force drives the organism
towards life.

While natural evolution stops with the physical environment and biological life, the “higher”
and “emergent” characteristics of humanity (consciousness and self-consciousness) thrust
humanity into a new mental and social world. Physical survival is now taken for granted but
survival in the mental and social worlds demand personal identity. Thus life and survival in the
new social world demands recognition of self first as independent being and then as worthy of
respect.

“We are what we think others think we are” is a very true saying. Since we cannot see and
know our selves IN our selves, we can only see and know our selves as reflections, or as the
presence (or effect of presence) within other selves28. For Lacan29, this knowledge is developed
long before intellectual or emotional knowledge. The self is constructed through the Other via
our imaginary identification with the other. This imaginary identification enables us to orient
ourselves to the world in which we find ourselves. Lacan uses his conception of the mirror
phase to explain the genesis of the construction of the self via this process of imaginary
identification. The child recognizes both its separateness and its identity with others. It sees
itself as separate from its environment, from others, from its mother and yet at the same time
the child sees itself as others see it – to some extent as an other and therefore to some extent as
alienated from itself. Thus Lacan’s conception of the mirror stage captures the complexity of
the processes of mutual recognition.

This search for self as a personal identity is worse than thrice doomed. For the model (not
reality) that is being projected by the desperate human being is a supposition twice over
(thinking what others think- neither thought is complete, certain or true). Alas that the “other”
human being who is to confer the recognition of identity is also in an exactly similar position,
also searching for the elusive self. Thus what is needed for successful life,
a) an absolute and purely independent living being must be found,
b) in whose presence and mind, the human being finds a unified living self through
recognition and reflection.
 Page 12 of 27

Part 2.
Identification of the seventh level
This is reminiscent of Gen 1:26,27 when man was created in the image and likeness of God..
Man’s life, then, is a reflection to be held and seen in God’s being. When sin interposes an
empty self between being and God, the being is dead, indeed. But God in His mercy decreed
that the empty and dead self still has the potential to live as long as there is biological life. The
potential can only be actualized or made real, by connecting the life in some way. That
identity that the empty self creates and makes is, like the force which animates it and the
world with which it interacts, physical, transient, a lifeless simulation. That identity which God
creates is, like Himself, a spiritual, eternal, living being (1 Pet 1:23). Berdyaev 30 says,
God’s self-revelation occurs within the inner person, through divine-human spiritual co-
operation. It brings about a revolutionary transformation of the human consciousness….
The content of the revelation is the Truth that is Godself, expressed in relational
knowledge of God.

Appasamy31 mourns the amount of energy spent on mastering the intricacies of grammar and
history in the Bible in comparison with the tome spent on meditation on the self-disclosure of
God in the Bible.

The synoptic gospels record the proclamation with which Jesus started his ministry and public
life. Mark 1:15 says “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and
believe the gospel”. The reference to time indicates a possible stage of development in the
human personality. Slater32 describes what is meant by a “higher” order of human fellowship in
this context.
we regard an association as “higher” if it
a) presupposes a certain level of development before it can be experienced and
b) carries the subject a stage further in the direction already discerned.

Thus any development which encourages the human personality towards greater individuality
satisfaction, unity and survival of the self may be regarded as the fulfillment – the human being
is now capable of entry into a new phase. Hogg33 suggests that this is why Christ “was so
pleased with the faith of the centurion Matt. 8:5-10) – the centurion recognized Christ’s right
of command, a relation with a higher order than known at present.” Note that this places the
onus of responsibility on the human. God has decreed that without (uncompelled) human co-
operation, his own self-revelation is unacknowledged. As St. John puts it, John 1:10-14, “He
was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto
his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Human interaction with
 Page 13 of 27

the divine is never in the physical world but in the inmost recesses of the mind. John 4:24 God
is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” should serve to
emphasize that the rule of God is primarily, mainly and actually in the realm of Spirit and
Truth. As a result of establishment in the human spirit, it could emerge physically, temporally-
but that is incidental. So is John 6:63 - it is always the Spirit that gives life, that is life- the
flesh is of no importance in comparison.

The Gospel
The theme of good news is on seeing for the blind and freeing for the captives (Luke 4:18), a
favorite of Isaiah’s (Isa. 42:6,7, Isa. 49:9, and used negatively in Isa. 6:9,10 which is quoted in
Mark 4:12, Matt 13:14,15, Luke 8:10, John 12:39-41, finally repeated in Acts 26:18, also in
Psa. 107:10,14). The clarity of vision resolves the part-whole paradox of perception
(knowing), and the freedom from bondage is clearly related to the power to act with true
understanding, without the cause-effect paradox of the self. Thus the interpretation in this
article is that the good news for humanity is that self-knowledge, identity and true being under
this regime is possible for the first time in history,

One of the main parts of Jesus’ teaching was expounded by C.H.Dodd34 in “The Parables of
the Kingdom. In general, there is extreme urgency, need for desperate measure of human
response portrayed here. It is, literally, a matter of life or death. However the kingdom itself is
also likened to something hidden, growing slowly, secretly and with a sudden dramatic harvest.
This may indicate the “fulfillment”, the inaugurated eschatology. The perception of this truth
and ability to act effectively and freely on it is characteristic of entry into and receiving or
inheriting citizenship in the kingdom of God, that is, a signature of right relation between God
and self. The result of accepting the gospel is not just full or successful, victorious, vigorous
and perfect life, but real life (as we understand dimly). Jesus leaves no doubt whatever that
rejection of the kingdom is death. John 3: 36, 5:29.

Truth linking with light, life and freedom are characteristic of St. John’s gospel. Sin is regarded
as darkness, death and bondage. The good news in John’s gospel is explicitly seeing
(perceiving) the light (way and truth). This “knowing” is intimate spiritual, not mere mental
exercise. By interpreting biblical knowing as intimate experience of, and truth as reality, life,
“Knowing the truth” is actual experience of real life. (John 8:32).

Knowledge via the way, truth and life

From earliest times, truth has been sought but very rarely affirmed as having been attained.
Jesus repeatedly places emphasis on truth as coupled with light, clarity of vision (Matt 6:22,23,
7:3-5,), life, overcoming sin, being free of sin, living abundantly. It is very evident that God’s
kingship or supremacy in self brings the spirit of truth to joyful realization (John 16:13,22) of
 Page 14 of 27

full life. The seventh level is therefore Jesus’ way, truth and life, the raising of human to divine
through the Holy Spirit.

John.14:6 Way, truth and life are synonymous - way can be understood here not as a door or
gate as in 10:7,9, but as the active means (dynamic process) to and the living reality of absolute
truth. cf John 1:3,4,18 Jesus is the way because he is the truth, the sole revelation of the Father
who is the end and goal of the journey. Jesus is the way out of death, into God’s presence,
because he is life itself—the source and giver of the life from above. In the original creation all
physical life was realised in him and through him. John 15:1,4-7, the true vine only grounded
in which the branch has life, and John 8:5, 6:51, 53-58, 63. Understanding and truth is clearly
referred in John 15:26, 16:13 and John 17:17.

The Father also made him the source and giver of life in the present and future state of
creation, to all humanity that accepts the gift (cf. John 6:40). Jesus describes the quality of this
life (10:10) as something different from existence.

The linking of the coming of the kingdom, or at least the kingship of Jesus himself, and the
truth is again emphasized at the crucial hour, when Jesus was saying almost his last words on
earth. Pilate infers on from the fervour of the mob and the strong reaction among the Jews
(John 18:33) there was evidently some kind of (negative) recognition. No one desires to kill a
weakling- Jesus was seen as a potent threat. To whom or to what was he a threat? John 18:36
clarifies that Jesus was indeed a king, but is not a threat to either Rome or Jerusalem. These are
kingdoms in the external world which oppose the Kingdom of God (Matt. 4:8 and 19:23,24,
Mk. 10:23 and also Rom 5.21 ).

Jesus goes on to explain his mission into the world in his own v. 37b: “For this I have been
born, and for this I have come into the world, in order that I might bear witness to the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Jesus thus affirms his teaching. (Cf Jn 3:16-
19, 10:4,5) and indirectly, his kingship in the inner, divine world. Those who listen to his voice
are his servants, but they do not fight (use force/violence) for him against the kingdoms of the
external world. However the servants too must follow him, bear witness to the truth John
15:20-22,27, and establish the inner kingdom in the self. Only through the self is the external
reality possible.

Rejection
Ignoring the gospel means refusing or even delaying to act on it. There are two causes for
rejection of this good news. The “survival of life” reason for rejection is principally, fear and
pride. Fear of judgement, which implies presence of unacknowledged guilt. Both fear and
pride result in self justification in various ways, notably, lack of “evidence” and refusal to
 Page 15 of 27

recognize any controlling authority whatsoever. The easiest way to reject God’s sovereignty is
to deny His existence. The “knowledge” reason for rejection is to declare God’s presence as a
delusion or a myth, requiring un-reason (deliberate suppression of knowledge and/or lack of
knowledge) for its support. Every justification, reasoning and ‘proof’ of absence of God, lack
of God’s goodness/justice/love, etc leads only to this one result, that self is judged supreme.

Warring selves : The Dragon in the path

Obedience to God means giving priority to His will, His values. Such obedience is explicitly
stated to be essential (Matt 7:21- Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.). The values
of the kingdom can only be assimilated by denial that is,., rejection of the values of the self.
(Matt 16:25, 10:39, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, 17:33, John 12:25). This reversal of values through
God’s self revelation is termed ‘new birth’ in the Bible when it is thorough. It could also be
called repentance. The choice present at every instant of human decision is at the deepest level,
a choice between self and God.

The will to serve God who is by definition, above self, is seen as a threat to the values of the
self. This brings a dichotomy within the self: one priority against the other. (Mk. 9:24 – I
believe, help my unbelief). The presence of God can be viewed by the self when rejecting
God’s authority as wrath (judgement) or by the self when accepting the kingship of God, as
love. Accordingly the self experiences the impulses shown in Table 2.
Table. 2
Sovereignty of God rejected Sovereignty of God accepted
Cause Self-elevation: Pride Self giving: love
Key emotion, instinct Danger of extinction - Fear Joy, Peace
Result of instinct Cover the self by deception Opening self to receive (more
blessing)
Action to Reinforce old creation (distortion, New creation (enhance commitment,
habit in finiteness, faults) divine values)
Effect of action Survival – fleeing from death Fulness of life, joy
Final consequence Identity equating to Finding reality - true identity:
nothingness: Physical and Resurrection into eternal life
spiritual death

Mental confusion
Even if the human does not feel that his/her survival is threatened, there is rejection, since the
meaning of the existence of the object that confers identity is unacceptable to the self. Simple
acceptance of such an existence is blocked by a type of reasoning is surprisingly common in
may areas of knowledge development and is accomplished by confusing a knowledge of the
 Page 16 of 27

object, and its usefulness, with the existence of the object. Thus, for example,

David Chalmers35, the author of several brilliant scientific articles on consciousness writes,
One may presume that when the behavioural paradigm was just beginning, not many
serious thinkers actually doubted the existence of internal processes. It was just that
nobody knew quite how to study them, and that in even talking about them researchers
felt like they were standing on quicksand, descending into vagueness. Little wonder they
grasped at whatever surer ground they had available, the direct study of behaviour. And
indeed the analysis of behaviour produced many important insights. These insights had a
profound and often positive effect on psychology. All that believers in 'cognitive
processes' could do was stand around and say "but this isn't all!". A curious thing began
to happen. Where once behaviourists had abjured the study of internal processes because
of the difficulty of dealing with these, some now, following upon the great success of
their research program, began to deny the existence of internal processes at all. When
spelt out, the argument of these radical behaviourists went something like this:
(1) We have had much success analyzing behaviour in terms of stimulus- -response
mechanisms, without needing 'internal processes.'
(2) Believers in 'internal processes' have had little success in reaching any concrete
conclusions, and seem vague about what they are even talking about.
(3) There may be a few problems with our view, such as certain arguments proposed by
the 'cognitivists,' but these will go away with careful analysis.
Therefore
(4) 'Internal processes' are an unnecessary hypothesis, and do not exist.
Replace “behaviour” with “nature/humanity”, “stimulus-response” with “scientific”, “internal
processes” with “God” and “cognitivists” with “Christian” to get an entertaining familiar
parallel!

In aother case, Millikan36 claims

..the ability to reidentify things that are objectively the same when we encounter them in
perception is the most central cognitive ability that we possess…. (But) It consists in a
confusion or mingling of the intentional contents of a representation with attributes of the
vehicle of representation. For a starting intuition, compare Kant's suggestion in the
Analogies that Hume had confused a succession of perceptions with a perception of
succession. In the case of the repetition view of reidentifying, I will later argue, the error
consists in confusing sameness in the vehicle of representation with a representation of
sameness.
 Page 17 of 27

Finally, rejection is expressed as a type of cause-effect problem: If God is the source of all
being is characterized by Love, how can Evil exist? Since Evil exists, and God of Love should
not permit the existence of evil, that God does not exist.

But it is not only atheists who reject God - every human being does so too, and it is not at all
easy to remove one’s self from God’s place. Nor is rejection so explicit or so simple to isolate
and change. The strength of the self-created self is tremendous. As St. Paul puts it, “Who well
deliver me from this body of death?” Rom 7:15-25. The self is unable to serve God, until the
new character is formed. Without a deliverer, the new self will never survive and grow into
reality. This does not mean that struggle between the selves is useless or should be evaded as
no clear outcome is possible. Struggle seems essential to form the new self, and it is God who
perfects it.

Part 3
Struggle is not mere disagreement, intellectual debate. Boehme37 was the first in the history of
modern thought to make a distinction, -- everything can be discerned only through the other,
through opposition. Light cannot be discerned without darkness, good without evil, the spirit
without the opposition of matter. Life can be understood in terms of death, truth in terms of
deceit. Thus all of life is essentially a struggle for life itself.

In the dialectic of "Lordship and Bondage". FromWikipedia38, Hegel presents a sequence for
human recognition in terms of self-consciousness.

Recognition: Crucially, for Hegel, self-consciousness cannot come to be without first

recognising another self-consciousness. Such an issue in the history of philosophy had
never been explored and the conclusion of which, marks a watershed in European
philosophy.
Hegel's myth: In order to explain how this works Hegel uses a kind of primordial myth
about how two people (half-people, since they are not yet self-conscious) meet.
Initial encounter: First the two "consciousnesses" meet, they are astounded at coming
to see another person. They can choose to ignore one another, in which case no self-
consciousness forms and each views the other merely as another object. Or, more
interestingly, they become mesmerized by the mirror-like other and attempt, as they
previously did with their own body to assert themselves.
"On approaching the other it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being;
secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially
real [real in the concepts a pre-self-consciousness] , but sees its own self in the other."
Reaction: The "I" sees another "I" and finds its own pre-eminence and control as
compromised. It ignores this other or sees it as a threat to itself. Its own self-certainty
 Page 18 of 27

and truth has forevermore been shattered. The only means of re-asserting itself, in order
to proceed toward self-consciousness, is by entering into a struggle for pre-eminence.
Death struggle: A struggle to the death ensues. However, if one of the two should die
the achievement of self-consciousness fails. Hegel refers to this failure as "abstract
negation" not the negation or sublation required. This death is avoided by the agreement,
communication of, or subornation to, slavery.
Enslavement and mastery: Truth of oneself as self-conscious is achieved only if both
live, the recognition of the other gives each one the objective truth and self-certainty
required for self-consciousness. Thus the two enter into the relation of master/slave and
preserve the recognition of each other.
Instability: However, this state is not a happy one and does not achieve full self-
consciousness. The recognition by the slave is merely on pain of death. The master self-
consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition and also has a mediated relation
with nature; the slave works with nature and begins to shape it into products for the
master.
The master only has an evanescent desire/pleasure relation to things whereas the slave
sees his work objectified in products. Only when slavery is abolished and there is mutual
recognition will both fully achieve self-consciousness.

This dialectic has been interpretated in many ways. Hegel's idea of self-consciousness is
one with a history, one that must have passed through a struggle for freedom before
realizing itself. The story can be read as self-consciousness coming to itself through a
child's or adult's development, or self-consciousness coming to be in beginning of
human history, or as that of a society or nation realizing freedom. The myth occurs in a
number of stages, and proceeds through Hegel's idea of “sublation” (Aufhebung), the
lifting up of two contradictory moments to a higher unity.

This story is strangely reminiscent of one in the Bible which relates the birth of a special
nation.

Gen. 32:24-28 tells of a very strange incident in the life of a very ordinary, ambitious man who
is not above resorting to deceit and trickery to achieve his ends. With hindsight, this man Jacob
was Abraham’s successor, selected to create God’s chosen nation. His actions would decide not
only his own fate, but also that of his family, the twelve tribes of Israel, the house of David, the
Saviour of all humanity. But at the time this was not in the least visible. There was no vestige
of anything momentous in the offing. Here was a man who struggled for recognition, for the
first position, even before he was born (Gen 25:22), who cheated his own brother (Gen.27:36),
who just as human as the next man, and he was racked with guilt and fear. He remembered
what he done against his brother, twice stealing his birthright, and probably many more
 Page 19 of 27

belligerent and envious actions. His brother had every cause for animosity, his vengeance
would be justifiable.

Jacob had God’s unconditional promise of presence and blessing both when he left for
Padanaram (Gen. 28:13-15) and when he returned (Gen. 31:3). Note that God’s promise is
totally unconditional but Jacob’s response is extremely fearful, doubtful, conditional and
meagre (Gen 28:17,20-22 – contrast the scope and power of v 14 and 15 with the response of
v22. This is typical of all humanity. Jacob had actually seen God’s army of angels the day
before (Gen.32:1) but Esau’s threatening presence with 400 armed men (Gen 32:6) was a
physical FACT of greater value. There was every “reason” to flee from danger and save
himself at any cost (his family would be left behind and probably be put to death or enslaved
by Esau).

The KJV says, “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the
breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow
of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he
said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be
called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and
hast prevailed”.
Points to be noted in a study of this struggle
1. Jacob was alone. He was torn between fear and hope. There was nothing to influence
him. What was his struggle that night?
2. A man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. Wrestling is pitting one
person’s physical strength against another. Included is the skill and knowledge of
fighting techniques and tactics. The outcome is normally that one of the combatants
wins and the other loses. In rare cases, the match is a tie, neither having scored
significantly over the other. If the match has been serious, there is a strong likelihood of
injury either to the loser, or to both participants when the outcome is indecisive. What
happened here? The wrestling was indecisive since although ‘the man’ states that
Jacob prevailed, it is obvious that ‘the man’ was neither injured nor overcome in any
way. The fight was strenuous and prolonged - Jacob was striving with all his might, yet
neither he not his opponent were in hurt throughout the night.
3. (At daybreak, ‘the man’) saw he prevailed not against him. This is most puzzling in
conjunction with the rest of the sentence. Possible questions are: a) the element of time:
why did the man prolong the fight? b) the element of perception and decision: did the
man suddenly realise that Jacob would continue wrestling through the day as well
unless something was done to stop him? Or did the daybreak signify something, that
‘the man’ wished to remain incognito and would not stay to face Jacob in daylight.
 Page 20 of 27

4. He touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as
he wrestled with him. This could apparently have happened any time the man wished.
Therefore he deliberately rendered Jacob helpless at a time when Jacob was determined
to continue the fight.
5. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. What happened at this instant? Jacob
instead on cowering before the victor, instead clings to his opponent for dear life; The
man instead of punishing Jacob further or even shouting in triumph, does not even
attempt to break free from Jacob’s hold.
6. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. Why did Jacob hold the man
who had just dealt him an injury? (note that the injury was real and lasting, not a
temporary phase of weakness). Instead of a plea or a humble request, he demands a
blessing.
7. And he said unto him, What is thy name? This is a question of identity equivalent to
“Who are you?”.
8. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast
thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed”. Here is the final paradox:
Jacob, having survived a night of struggle is suddenly overcome through pain. At this
point, there is an interchange of identities: The actual victor not only does not harm
Jacob further, he praises Jacob for his tenacity and triumph. Jacob, the loser, demands a
blessing instead of begging for mercy.

One possible interpretation is as follows:

1. Jacob had to choose between staying to meet his brother that is,., hoping in God’s
protection or fleeing from his brother in fear, as he had done once before. (Gen 32: 9-
12) He therefore struggled all night between hope and fear. Here is an identity crisis.
Human beings have the strange consciousness of double identities, usually at time of
stress. Man, poised between two worlds, sees his self split in two, one driving to what
appears to be reasonable and the physical reality and the other adhering to what is yet
unseen and unknown, but specifically promised by (as yet an unknown) God.
2. God meets man in physical reality (as ‘man’), through what man perceives as fear and
pain.
3. Man must struggle to retain his belief in God. God maintains both the situation of
struggling as well as man’s strength to struggle – he never uses real force against man
in any circumstance (even at the end, he only ‘touches’ man). Belief grows through the
struggle when man co-operates with God.
4. When God sees that man will not abandon his hope as belief in His promise, he stops
the struggle. Whenever necessary, this stopping is through a revelation which can only
occur in pain and weakness. Such pain and weakness cut through self deception to
reveal the core self and its position. Man does not, of himself, recognize the presence of
 Page 21 of 27

God in either his fear or his hope. God neither quenches man’s ardour by defeating him
(forcing belief) and declaring himself victor, nor does he give way to man at any point.
This means that the situation is initiated, maintained and concluded solely by God, and
man’s responsibility is only to retain his hope and belief in God. Matt 7:13-23 is
explained by Bonhoeffer39, reiterating Jesus as the initiator, the way and the end of
discipleship. Unless He knows us, we are known by the world in vain.
5. The recognition of God’s presence changes all positions. The human who has retained
his faith through times of darkness and distress finds himself in an enviable position of
being able to demand blessing that is,., he is conscious of God’s favour and this further
trust is immediately vindicated in reality. Man first sees God as an opponent, in fear, in
physical reality but when he refuses to let go of hope, he recognizes God’s presence in
hope realising and fulfilling itself, in visible blessing, power and honour. In corollary, if
man still fears for his life in God’s presence (as Jacob could have shrunk in terror when
‘the man’ touched him), there is no good result – struggle is in vain.
6. The key to man’s successful relation or righteousness with God lies in this confidence
of receiving goodness, not just the acknowledgement of one’s defects. Thus Jacob’s
hope in God’s word at the beginning of the night grew through the struggle into perfect
confidence at daybreak.
7. What the world sees as failure, weakness and surrender to foolishness is declared by
God to be a victory, strength, a triumphant claim to affirmation of honour, status and
renewed identity, beginning NOW and continuing in all eternity.
8. The most puzzling element is the fact that God actually commends the length of the
struggle. This is reminiscent of the parable of the unjust steward, Matt 11 :8 Jacob
thought he was struggling for life but was actually struggling for death. In the paradox
of human life, life and death , good and evil, light and darkness are indistinguishable.
Therefore what God finds pleasing and worthy of blessing, is not deeds, not words or
knowledge. He does recognize good intentions, but the key point is that the determined
will to live is highly recommended.

Surrender as victory
Is Jacob struggling with himself or with God? No person can struggle against nothingness,
force evokes force in this situation. Struggle for a victorious identity that can survive in reality
can only take place between God and man, or man and evil or man against himself. However,
in this context, evil can be termed negative presence that is,., absence of being that is,
nothingness. Therefore (again in this context), man struggles with God and with himself. This
is the puzzle of humanity that the divided self (hoping in God and fearing God) is not two in
identity, they are the same person. Loss to either part of the person is loss to the whole person,
neither can defeat the other, and there is therefore no victor.
 Page 22 of 27

Hegel’s 40 account of the struggle for recognition as being in reality, is as follows:

The living substance, further, is that being which is truly subject, or, what is the same
thing, is truly realized and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in
mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite. …
True reality is merely this process of reinstating self-identity, of reflecting into its own
self in and from its other, and is not an original and primal unity as such, not an
immediate unity as such.

Kevin Hart41 also following on Hegel, describes this as “.. God may not be found in ‘external
experience’ (the senses) or in ‘inner experience’ (illumination), but is to be known in the final
reaches of Erfahrung, understood speculatively as the return of absolute spirit to itself.” He
also quotes St. Anselm42: ‘he who does not believe will not experience, and he who has not had
experience will not know’

In this story, humanity’s struggle to overcome Evil (pain, sickness, grief, death) is shown to be
an illusion. So is physical survival, for without a self grounded in reality, humanity is not alive.
Here, evil is not a force to struggle against, the active resistance to good is itself evil. It appears
that Jacob resists God in the beginning and then there is a clinging at the end. When in flight
from his self, God appears to Man as man (Ps. 50: 21, “You thought I was just like you”), a
man moreover, who is set to overpower him. Man therefore struggles against his opposer with
all his might, to survive as an recognisable being. But in his consciousness of the Divine, he
must recognize his own identity within God’s identity, since from the day in the Garden of
Eden, Man saw himself as God, and God as a creature, his identity is indiscernible. Only when
Man recognises himself as nothingness and the actual accuser (pride, fear and guilt), can he
distinguish God as Savious, Redeemer, the source of all blessing and the ground of all being.

Thus neither struggle against self, nor struggle against God can end in victory. Surrender to
God means, as the divided self rightly recognized, repentance. But repentance is not just fear,
remorse or confession of weakness, it is confidence in love and goodness that will flow from
acceptance of God, by God. The surrender, involving a reversal of identity, actually means
victory. Surrender of the fearful self, fleeing mistakenly to death instead of from it, is triumph
of love and hope. Thus it is only in surrendering to the superiority of God that the two selves
unite in victory and receive life. It is typical of divine character that when man surrenders to
God, God declares man the victor. That which man has been struggling against lies within the
mind, fear and disbelief.

Stamina
In this context, if Jacob despaired or lost hope, fear would have forced him to take action to
save his own life by disregarding God’s promise. (Gen 32: 9,12). Fleeing from Esau as he had
 Page 23 of 27

done years before would certainly have saved his life but he would have as certainly lost his
identity as Israel. Under these circumstances, being defeated by fear means disbelief in God
which in turn means putting one’s self above God or putting the self in God’s place. This
disbelief, lack of confidence in God and elevation of self inevitably results in loss of identity.
In effect, the person survives physically but loses her status in God’s presence, therefore her
real or true life is lost, as in Gen. 3, 6-9.

Now, the paradox of prevailing can be explained: stamina, the signature of the use of the will,
is an important factor of victory. Jacob did not understand what was happening, and he had as
yet no confidence in God, whom he did not really know. But he hung on in hope all night.
When he finally perceived and felt his opponent’s power and mercy, he boldly believed in his
goodness, despite all appearances to the contrary (that is,., his own pain).

When the seventh level is recognized, access and acceptance is not easy or smooth. There is a
definite need for commitment. This is frequently termed faith, but could also be simple
stubbornness is refusing to let go. Let go of what? Let go first of hope, slowly becoming
clearer as the unseen goal of wholeness of self, the brighter future, the real life, and finally God
Himself. Wrestling with our thoughts and doubts and experiencing pain and sorrow day after
day is often a part of daily life. It is not a sign of failure, but of courage and faith, to engage in
this hard work. People of strong faith struggle and wrestle with thoughts and feel fear, pain and
sorrow in their hearts. The above interpretation of Jacob’s struggle is thus a re statement of the
gospel of the kingdom of heaven and of Jesus’ call to deny the self daily and follow him.

Deny your self

It is here that Christianity differs from all other religions. Every religion consists of a force
driving towards the Divine. But the fear and sorrow connected with pain and evil in all human
life is treated in various ways. Sometimes it is explained as arising from mankind. This is true
but unsatisfactory. Sometimes fear, pain, sorrow and evil are evaded as illusions thereby
treating humanity itself as an illusion, something to be discarded. Sometimes there is a fierce
opposition, an attempt to subdue it by “righteousness”. All of these are true to some extent but
nevertheless evil does remain and will always remain. It is only Christ whose Spirit was Truth,
wisdom, understanding and might (Isa 11:2-5) who deliberately, recklessly, foolishly threw His
Self into the hands of evil, pain and death. Christ took on the entire struggle on behalf of
mankind (Phil.2:7,8). Stott43 beautifully describes redemption and reconciliation through
substitution – Sin and death is substitution of man’s self in God’s place, God substituted His
self in Christ for man’s self to pay the price. Therefore by embracing the enemy, the enemy is
turned into a friend – pain, sorrow, death and all evil are now creative forces, good is sustained
not only in spite of but even because of evil.
 Page 24 of 27

The paradox will not be resolved as long as life in this world exists. At the very moment of
recognition, the living knowing self vanishes into the known object. The divine life that is
accessed passes into the self and so into death if it is retained within the self. Just as life is
reached through fierce, passionate uncontrollable will to live, this divine life must be poured
out of the self. With equal determination, the will must be exercised to forget and deny self,
to use up and live out the energy even in what might be dangerously reckless. (Parable of the
talents Matt 25:14-30, Luke 19:12-27). Denying the self is not a single isolated deed, it is a
continuous process and it is even more important after entering the Kingdom of God.

And so the moments pass in timeless eternity. The decisions and recognition points in daily life
are tiny, indiscernible, seemingly unimportant. We do not know just as Jacob did not know,
how meaningful it is, or how much depends on that little impulse. Also, each tiny decision
while it may not directly lead to world-changing events, certainly contributes to huge, planned
and dedicated progress (or regress: Isa 28: 10, 13, NIV “Do and do, do and do, rule on rule,
rule on rule, here a little, there a little”).

In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two verbs: ‫ שוב‬shuv (to return) and
‫ נחם‬nicham (to feel sorrow).In the New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the
Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia), "after/behind one's mind", which is a compound word of the
preposition 'meta' (after, with), and the verb 'noeo' (to perceive, to think, the result of
perceiving or observing, see nous, above) so that the whole compound means: 'to think
differently after'. Metanoia is therefore primarily an after-thought, different from the former
thought; a change of mind accompanied by regret and change of conduct, "change of mind and
heart".

In this context, the “mind” is surprisingly often mistaken as something static, a fixed belief or
at most, bad habit or wrong ideas. Then repentance is construed as penitence for past misdeeds
and a resolve to change one’s way of life. This is certainly true but it is also superficial. For, as
explained above, mind is not simply a collection of states and mental processes. It is in, by,
through and with the mind that the self which sees, knows, wills and acts. Therefore the Greek
translation, to change the mind (and that “after” some important occurrence) conveys an
extraordinarily powerful meaning – to change not only “what” one sees but “how” one sees it,
similarly not only passively “what” one knows, wills or does, but actively, “how” one knows,
wills and does. The entire self is recreated not just because the construction was flawed, which
it certainly was, but mainly because its foundation rested on that which was unreal, on
nothingness. In the Old Testament, the great leaders and prophets all “repented” after
encountering the Divine revelation – they were different people. Thus entry into God’s
kingdom is certainly conditional on repentance but this repentance is not simply a regretful or
fearful looking back on shame but a victorious ability to receive blessing and honour.
 Page 25 of 27

It is written, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, old things have passed away; behold,
all things have become new”. (2 Cor. 5:17 ). This is because God sends His Holy Spirit to
mend the broken pieces of our life, for He anointed us, and sealed us, and given us his spirit in
our hearts as a guarantee. (2 Cor 1:22 ). If God’s kingdom is established in me, there is no
more distinction between part and whole, subject and object, knower and known in myself, as
my whole, unified self is identified in Him. He is the source, means and end of all that is in me.
Every thought, word and deed flows from Him and for Him. He is the Alpha and Omega (Rev
1: 8, 11, 17,22:13, Isa 48:12, Heb. 12:2), the author and finisher, potential and fulfillment, the
beginning and the end of all my self. Can any one claim this final result?

To conclude in Nicholas Arseniev’s44 words,

No external, compulsory proofs can convince - cosmological, ontological, psychological
proofs are arguments showing the plausibility of the existence of God, but no more. God
proves his reality by meeting the soul. Christianity proclaims the redeeming power of
Truth and the obligation of man to take a definite conscious attitude towards it and to
bear witness thereto. We see that Truth and life, knowledge and salvation are not to be
separated… That is life: to know God. Truth is not only theoretical; it makes free, it is
fullness of life, 1.John 5:20: “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true,
even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life”…

End notes
1. Know thyself”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
2. George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. 1710,
available at http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a1497
3. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_%28philosophy%29
4. John Locke chapter XXVII "On Identity and Diversity" in An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding (1689) Uzgalis, William, "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/locke/>.
5. Edmund Husserl from http://www.husserlpage.com/
6. Descartes, from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descmed.pdf
7. Hegel pages at http://www.gwfhegel.org/personalism.html .
8. Francis Bacon [Novum Organum, Aphorism 41] from
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0415
9. Philip Goodchild, “Truth and Utopia” from
www.theologyphilosophycentre.co.uk/papers/Goodchild_TruthandUtopia.doc
 Page 26 of 27

10 David Pitt, , "Mental Representation", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter

2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/mental-representation/>.
11. Franz Brentano, , (1874/1995) Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint Originally
published in 1874; English edition edited by L. McAlister, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
1973; reprinted with an introduction by Peter Simons, London: Routledge 1995.
12. Leibnitz’s Discourse on Metaphysics, §8, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/leib-met.htm
13. Henri Bergson Creative Evolution, (London:Macmillan and Co. Ltd.. 1911, 1922).
14. B.H.Streeter. Reality, Macmillan and Co., Ltd, 1926,., pg 306
15. Schopenhauer page at http://www.galilean-library.org/schopenhauer.html
16 David Chalmers, The Representational Character of Experience. In (B. Leiter, ed) The
Future for Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 2004.15 Roy F. BAUMEISTER, 1986,
Identity. Oxford Univ. Press.
17. Marvin Minsky, (1985). The Society of Mind. Simon and Schuster Inc., New York, NY.
18 Roy F. BAUMEISTER, 1986, Identity. Oxford Univ. Press.
19 M.SKINNER, 1987, British Journal of Psychology 78. {Reviewing K.Yardley &
T.Honess, Self and Identity.}
20. Warren Nevius Religion As Experience And Truth :An Introduction To The Philosophy
Of Religion, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1941
21. Eric T Olson,., "Personal Identity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2002
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2002/entries/identity-personal/>.
22. Thomas Metzinger, PSYCHE 11 (5), June 2005 PSYCHE:
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/ Précis: Being No One
23. Jean-Paul Sartre “Existentialism Is a Humanism”, Lecture given in 1946 Source:
Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, Meridian Publishing
Company, 1989; Translator: Philip Mairet; HTML Markup: by Andy Blunden 1998;
proofed and corrected February 2005.
24. Martin Heidegger (1949) Existence and Being Existence and Being from Existentialism
from Dostoyevsky to Sartre edited by Walter Kaufman published in full.
inhttp://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heidegg2.htm
25. Nicolai Berdyaev, “The meaning of the Creative Act”, Ch.5, Creativity and being:(New
York NY: Collier Books 1962) Berdyaev, Ch.2 Man as Microcosm and macrocosm:
26. A.N. Whitehead’s philosophy expounded in Lewis S. Ford Transforming Process Theism
S.U.N.Y. Press, 2000,
27. Arthur Schopenhauer, “Parerga and Paralipomena” listed in Wicks, Robert, "Arthur
Schopenhauer", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2003 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/schopenhauer/>.
 Page 27 of 27

28. The Meaning of Hegel's Logic, IV The Meaning of “Reflection”

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm
29. Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Inc., 1977). "The Mirror Stage as formative in the function of the I as revealed in
psychoanalytic experience",
30. Nicolai Berdyaev, “Freedom and the Spirit” , New York, Charles Scribner and Sons,
1935
31. A.J. Appasamy, “What shall we believe?, pubislished joinly by CLS, ISPCK, LPH.,
Madras, Delhi, Lucknow 1971, p.35
32. R.H.L. Slater, “God of the Living”, Nicholson and Watson ltd, London, 1939, p.172
33. A.G. Hogg, “Christ’s message of the kingdom”, CLS Calcutta, 1912., p.39
34 C.H. Dodd,, “The Parables of the Kingdom”, nisbet &Co., London, 1935
35. David Chalmers, The First-Person and Third- Person Views (Part I) from
http://consc.net/notes/first-third.html
36. R. Millikan Content and vehicle, from
www.philosophy.uconn.edu/department/millikan/c8.pdf
37. Nicolai Berdyaev, “Studies Concerning Jacob Boehme 1 Etude I. The Teaching about the
Ungrund and Freedom” Journal Put' Feb. (1930) No. 20, p. 47-79.
38. Wikipedia page on Master-slave dialectic, with Hegel’s "Lordship and Bondage", from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_and_Bondage
39 D. Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship, Translated from the German Nachfolge, first
publisged 1937 by Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Munich by R.H. Fuller], p.165
40. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Phenomenology of Mind: PREFACE On scientific knowledge”, No:
18 from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm
41 Kevin hart, “The Experience of God The experience of the Kingdom of God “ from
http://www3.villanova.edu/mission/experience/hart.htm
42. Anselm, ‘On the Incarnation of the Word’, in his Trinity, Incarnation and Redemption:
Theological Treatises, ed. Jasper Hopkins and Herbert Richardson, rev. ed. (New York: Harper
and Row, 1970),
43 John Stott, “The Cross of Christ”,, 2nd ed., 1989, Inter Varsity Press, UK
44. Nicholas Arseniev, “Revelation of Life Eternal”, St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press, New
York 1963.