HOMEWORK #3

Banach states that we all have a "freedom of synthesis" -- we cannot choose our experiences or our characteristics, but we can interpret them however we want to, we can make of them what we wish. Technically, sure, you can interpret anything in the world in any way you'd like. Who can contest an interpretation?

But how much does this relate to living, in reality? Say something tragic happens to you, or someone you love -- do you truly have the "freedom" to interpret the situation in a positive way? Or, even if you have the "freedom" to, is anyone emotionally able to? How much sway can you actually exert over your feelings? Or are these questions irrelevant, as Banach advises us to "BE AUTHENTIC"?

How can one even know what is authentic (or, if you like, "AUTHENTIC")? Even if we are "absolute individuals," it's clear that there are cultural, societal, and moral rules we're expected to follow. Is the decision to follow them distinctly un-authentic? Can we really "always rebel against [the outside world's] influence"? Is the decision to not act upon my emotions un-authentic, even if the results would be disastrous? Can I get angry and punch you in the face in the name of authenticity?

Is being authentic more about accepting your own emotions for what they are internally, or about how you portray yourself externally?

People are complex beings. We can feel so many emotions at the same time; we can feel one thing and then another in a matter of seconds, and each can be genuine in its own right. Our feelings, opinions, and perceptions are apt to change over time, sometimes without any notice at all. How does our authenticity pertain to to our fluidity, when it's impossible to act upon multiple emotions at once?

Banach talks about how "we all play roles, [...] letting other people determine what we are instead of deciding, ourselves, what we will be." I know that I play roles of my own every day, trying to meet expectations, whether they're real or not, in attempts to please others or maybe just my own self. There's no way for me to deny that. But I can't pass up this chance to argue a little with Banach's phrasing again. :) Are we "letting" other people tell us who to be? By his logic, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, considering we can't as "absolute individuals" know what other people want us to be.

As I see it, we impose most of these expectations on ourselves. I feel like it's mostly self-created. We think we understand what other people want from us and what will get them to accept us, and we scramble desperately to satisfy, pulling on one skin and then another; engaging in fake relationships and interactions because we're afraid to expose ourselves. I feel like this relates to the concept of being an "absolute individual" directly, too -- are we literally unable to see beyond subjectivity, or are we unable to just because we're scared of sharing our real selves with other people?

But in the end, wouldn't we really rather just be honest with one another?

Or is that maybe just me?

I know I get tired of putting on a front or keeping my mouth shut when I have something to say, tired of protecting myself from fears of rejection that only come from my own insecurity. Sometimes I just don't want to bother, and I have to wonder:

Wouldn't it be easier to just open up?

---

"And then it came to me then. That we were wonderful traveling companions but in the end no more than lonely lumps of metal in their own separate orbits. From far off they look like beautiful shooting stars, but in reality they're nothing more than prisons, where each of us is locked up alone, going nowhere. When the orbits of these two satellites of ours happened to cross paths, we could be together. Maybe even open our hearts to each other. But that was only for the briefest moment. In the next instant we'd be in absolute solitude. Until we burned up and became nothing."

-- Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart