Willson Dora the Self to the Self

PENDLE HILL PAMPHLET 35

The Self To The Self

Dora Willson

PENDLE HILL PUBLICATIONSWALLINGFORD, PENNSYLVANIA

DORA WILLSONSelf To The Self

2

Published 1946 by Pendle HillRepublished electronically © 2004 by Pendle Hill

http://www.pendlehill.org/pendle_hill_pamphlets.htmemail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT is made to Oxford UniversityPress for use of My Own Heart Let Me More HavePity On from Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins,1930; to Chicago University Press for quotationfrom Gertrude Stein, Narration, 1935; to RandomHouse for lines from W. H. Auden, The DoubleMan, 1941.


3

Introduction

The preparation for the talk of which this is a modifiedreport was undertaken by a group of six to ten women,including the speaker, who met a number of times duringthe preceding months for informal conversation. Theconviction grew among them that the usual conscious andlargely intellectual preparation is inadequate where thetopic is of such an all-encompassing nature. It was hopedthat by a deliberate quieting of the surface mind and acultivation of relationships at deeper levels, the direct andwordless communication which is always taking placebetween speaker and hearers might be enhanced. Thespeaker’s particular responsibility was to express the trulyfelt experience in words of the utmost possible simplicityand sincerity so as to effect the least possible distortion ofwhat had been inwardly known.

This hope was in some sensible measure realized atthe time of the meeting on October 6, 1946, and many thenpresent had a vivid consciousness of group functioning. Thereader of this report will therefore find profit in these pagesin proportion as he can place himself in that samerelationship of lively participation.

If this is his first voyage of discovery in thisinexhaustible subject, he will become aware that here isto be found the basic “matter” which the ancient Chinesesage refers to, the focal point where the spiral which hasturned inward turns out again.


4

The ancients who wished to illustrateillustrous virtues throughout the empire firstordered well their own states. Wishing to orderwell their states, they first regulated theirfamilies. Wishing to regulate their families theyfirst cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivatetheir persons, they first rectified their hearts.Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first soughtto be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to besincere in their thoughts, they first extended tothe utmost their knowledge. Such extension, ofknowledge lay in the investigation of matter.

Matter being investigated, knowledge becamecomplete. Their knowledge being complete, theirthoughts were sincere. Their thoughts beingsincere, their hearts were then rectified. Theirhearts being rectified, their persons werecultivated. Their persons being cultivated, theirfamilies were regulated. Their families beingregulated, their states were rightly governed.Their states being rightly governed, the wholekingdom was made tranquil and happy.

From the Son of Heaven down to the mass ofthe people, all must consider the cultivation ofthe person the root of everything besides.

Confucius, The Great Learning


5

The Self To The Self

Our subject — the relation of the self to the self — isas vast as life itself: one can but dip into it, as it were inmid-stream. There can be no beginning, middle or end ofit. Nor is it possible to say anything new about it —everything has been said and said times without count.Endless banalities and clichés come to mind; I was at timesoppressed with the remembrance of them. The chancediscovery of some passages of Gertrude Stein1 freed me fromthat oppression and crystallized some convictions I had beengroping toward for some time. Parenthetically I would liketo say that reading Gertrude Stein’s book gave me a senseof “livelier collaboration with a writer,”2 and I began to seethe reasonable reason for some of her idiosyncracies of styleand punctuation. In her own words, “a comma by helpingyou along holding your coat for you and putting on your shoeskeeps you from living your life as actively as you shouldlead it.”

Words, I had been feeling, are like an embroidery uponthe underlying fabric of communication between men, thewarp and woof of which is woven in mysterious ways andlargely outside our control. That embroidery could bedestructive of the fabric itself if it were not seen as anintegral part of it. Therefore it seemed clear that this subject,the relation of the self to the self, above all others must befelt before it could be spoken of and speech on it shouldgrow preferably out of the pooled inner experience of many.Now on this Gertrude Stein was very helpful:

. . . a common-place thing does not containfeeling. That is just what makes a common-placething a common-place thing, that it does notcontain feeling. . . . What makes a thing as it iscoming out in being said or written what makesthat thing a common-place thing, not what is that


6

they felt before they said anything that is alwayssupposing that they stopped long enough to feelanything. Has anything anything to do withstopping long enough to feel anything is it or is itnot so.3

And so I was encouraged to think we had done right instopping “long enough to feel.”

There was once a man, we are told, who being askedhis name, answered “Legion.” That is every man’s name.Most of us realize its appropriateness only intermittentlyand usually feel ourselves to be “single” – which is perhapsjust as well. Nevertheless life seems to insist, in one wayor another, that we gain some awareness of our variousselves — or aspects of our personality, or whatever we wishto call the “others” who, with “me,” make up the “legion.”Moreover, awareness brings with it recognition of the needfor some adequate modus vivendi, some satisfactory systemof inner relationships. A favored few reach these goals witha minimum of conscious effort. Many more people gothrough life unaware that one of the main causes of theever-recurring complications besetting them is theinadequacy or the breakdown of these inner relationships.Still others know where the root of the trouble is. It is theywho will most readily see meaning in our odd title, “TheSelf to the Self.”

E. Graham Howe has a vivid chapter in one of his books4

in which he compares the individual to an island. “The self5

is the king of the island; he shares it with his subjects andwith the animals who live there too. All should work togetherto make the island a desirable home. The analogy is easyto develop. Another suggestive comparison is that of ahouse. The rooms represent the various elements of theself. We dwell usually in the front parlor, kept neat andready for visitors, but neglect our back rooms and our cellars.


7

Can we rule our island democratically, with no suppressed,dissatisfied minorities? Can we be wise householders andmake use of all our house? Can we become ever moreconscious of the selves within our self — the obvious,rational, adult self — the hidden, irrational, childish self;the shifting, changing, surface self — the deep, constantself; the bright, acceptable, recognized self and the dark,unadapted, unknown brother; the body and the soul, theheart and the mind; “that of God within” which must surelyhave somewhere a counterpart — that of the Devil? So manyways of attempting to describe the multiplicity we hold inour seeming unity. Can we come to terms with this?

Yes, man has always said that it is possible toencompass this unending variety in some sort ofrelationship, not only possible, but necessary for life.

From the dawn of history we can trace man’s efforts inthis direction and see how he found in religion, as its veryname indicates, that which ties together what is separateinto a functioning whole. So we are not surprised that allreligions and most philosophies insist on self-awarenessas a basic requirement, from the “know thyself” of Socratesto the less familiar, non-canonical saying of Jesus, “Striveto know yourself, and ye shall be aware that ye are thesons of the almighty Father; and ye shall know that ye arein the city of God and ye are the city.”6 Or, to use morecontemporary formulations, here is what the Commissionon Christian Doctrine, appointed by the Archbishops ofCanterbury and York, said in 1938:

The things most wrong with a man are oftenthose of which he is least conscious. The notionthat what is required of us is merely to do whatwe happen to regard as our duty is disastrous. Aprimary duty of the individual is to try to find outwhat his duty really is.7


8

Or again, listen to a writer typical of our modern pointof view:

If God has given us a mind, we are certainlymeant to apply it, not only on external things butequally on ourselves. That which distinguishesman from everything else in creation is con-sciousness, and the history of mankind showsthat consciousness grows and increases.8

And we find many clear passages on this point in thewritings of early Friends. To take one at random, as I did,from Penington’s letters:

O my Friend! mind this precious Truthinwardly, this precious grace inwardly, theprecious life inwardly, the precious light inwardly,the precious power inwardly, the inward word oflife, the inward voice of the Shepherd in the heart,the inward seed, the inward salt, the inwardleaven, the inward pearl. . . . between wordswithout concerning the thing, and the thing itselfwithin; and wait and labour, then, to know,understand, and be guided by, the motives,leadings, drawings, teachings, quickenings, etc.of the thing itself within.9

There seem to be two main questions which need tobe “deeply lodged and distinctly stated.”

Of what nature should our relation to ourself be?How establish and maintain and develop it?

The Nature Of The Relation Of Self To Self

Jesus said that the way to life was to follow the twogreat commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God


9

with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all yourmind, and with all your strength,” and “you shall love yourneighbor as yourself.”10 Why has this last clause, the thirdrelationship, that of the self to the self, been so consistentlyignored or even contradicted? Ignoring it may be moredangerous than we think. Jesus’ answer to the scribeastounds one by its unassailability — not pushing a manoff in the vague regions of God off the earth — but holdinghim right here, confronted by fellow human beings. This“commandment” is planted right down upon humanrelationships, amazingly — without a code, not a word ofcode — all compassed in “as thyself.”

What has Christianity said? That it was fine idealism,but man couldn’t carry it out. But Jesus didn’t say, “This doand thou shalt live,” in that expectation. The second half ofthe commandment is no mean perception; it is the discoverythat in human relationship you don’t need to read the books,just read yourself.

Straightforward as this is, it is not simple to apply. Sobeset with misleading bypaths is the way to self-knowledgeand self-love that many, realizing the dangers, have triedto avoid it altogether. In so doing, they have missed theway to love of others, for these two “ways” are in realityone, as the second commandment states clearly.

A familiar illustration may be recalled: for Calvin, loveof self is a “pest,” love of others a virtue. Sinful man is buta worm; he should find nothing lovable about himself; thatwould be selfishness, one of the greatest of sins. Now observehow in Calvinism this position, so plausible, so apparentlynoble and disinterested, has a sterilizing effect upon loveof others. This becomes a duty, a virtue to be practicedbecause it is a virtue, instead of being the ever-renewedoutflowing result of a creative inner relationship.

From this static altruism it is but a step to the neglector contradiction of the second commandment as a whole.


10

And in fact we find Calvin at one point saying, “For whatthe schoolmen advance concerning the priority of charityto faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a distemperedimagination. . .”11 We may remember also the Puritans’distrustful attitude towards all men. Indeed, since man wasessentially evil, how could it be expected that he be lovable?As over against these attitudes of self-abasement and theirnegative results, it is instructive to remember the saintswho came inductively to the same evaluation of thesinfulness of man, but knew nevertheless that it is possibleto “love him even under a blight,” to love him even as asinner, without admiring him, because God himselfloves man.

My own heart let me more have pity on; letMe live to my sad self hereafter kind,Charitable; not live this tormented mindWith this tormented mind tormenting yet.

I cast for comfort I can no more getBy groping round my comfortless, than blindEyes in their dark can day or thirst can findThirst’s all-in-all in all a world of wet.

Soul, self; come, poor Jackself, I do adviseYou, jaded, let be; call off thoughts awhileElsewhere; leave comfort root-room; let joy sizeAt God knows when to God knows what; whose smile‘s not wrung, see you; unforeseen times rather — as skiesBetweenpie mountains — lights a lovely mile.12

When the pendulum swung from these positions of self-abasement, it swung too far and the necessity of selfishness,self-love, self-regard was advocated indiscriminately, withthe correlative, the condemnation of the love of others asweakness — still the false contradiction. Nietzsche, whosename comes to mind inevitably as holding these points of


11

view, had glimpses of deeper understanding, however. Thelove of neighbors which he condemns is one which is rootedin a wrong attitude toward oneself, and so, presumably, aright relation to oneself would lead to a right relation withothers. “Your neighbor love is your bad love for yourselves,”he says in “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” “You flee into yourneighbors from yourselves and would fain make a virtuethereof. But I fathom your unselfishness . . . . You cannotstand yourselves and you do not love yourselves suffi-ciently.”13

When we look at modern man, baffled by the contra-dictions of his guides, we see that the false oppositionbetween love of self and love of others is still part of hisdaily pattern. True, our “enlightened,” liberal thinking hasdropped the emphasis on the utter worthlessness of man,but the optimism is usually rooted in shallow ground andthe confusion worse than ever, for while altruism is taughtin school and church and home, and even in popular litera-ture and the movies, an open, naive respect is paid toself-advancement and a crude and unashamed concern forself alone is recommended as the means of assuring the“good of the whole.”14

1t is not necessary here to trace in detail theconsequences for the individual and for society of theneglect of the pivotal clause in the principle, “love thyneighbor as thyself.” It may be worth while, however, beforepassing to our second question, to glance at the widelyaccepted interpretations of love of self as selfishness, andof love of others as unselfishness. It is not to be wonderedat if we hardly know what true love is, for the false forms oflove are numerous. Much of literature has been occupiedwith depicting them. One recent and terrifying example isfound in Stephen Vincent Benet’s “John Brown’s Body.” Lucy,in front of her mirror, talks to herself:


12

“Honey, I love you,” she whispered, “I love you,honey. Nobody loves you like I do, do they,sugar?Nobody knows but Lucy how sweet you are.You mustn’t get married, honey. You mustn’tleave me.”15

In this description, as in many others, we can see howsubtly imitative is the false article. But true love and itsimitations spring from different sources and it is there, attheir point of origin, that we may most easily distinguishthem from each other. True love grows out of a positive,affirmative attitude towards life and all its potentialities.All false forms of love grow out of dislike, distrust, and thefear and insecurity which follow. They are attempts atbolstering up, at defending a threatened citadel, and usuallythe attacks are imagined as coming from without, whenthe enemy is within and his position strengthened,therefore, by the mistaken defense.

Thus also true unselfishness and readiness tosacrifice one’s self grow out of a generalized state ofaffirmation of life and its values. The sacrifice is then notan end in itself, a supreme virtue, as in Fascist philosophy,but a means, the only appropriate and adequate means onoccasion, to affirm and express one’s loyalty to the valuesprized. False unselfishness, on the contrary, is rooted in adeep distrust of and dislike for the self — so deep as to beunrecognized, usually. The terrible insecurity which resultsmay lead to a grasping selfishness, but also often, to thepassionate throwing away of oneself into a greater wholewhere security may be expected.16

This is the seeming unselfishness which Nietzscherecognized, which may be a result of the self having beenpatterned from childhood up on all the models presented byfamily and society. There may even be no conflict because


13

there is no consciousness of a self which is not thuspatterned. This adaptation may last till death and apparentlybe successful, but we know that someone sometime willhave to solve the unsolved problems: “For I the Lord thy Godam a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon thechildren unto the third and fourth generation.”

I would like here to quote Erich Fromm, who speaksfrom inside experience of the use Nazism made of this deep-rooted urge to self-sacrifice:

The authoritarian propaganda uses theargument that the individual of the democraticstate is selfish and that he should becomeunselfish and socially minded. . . The appeal forunselfishness is the weapon to make the averageindividual still more ready to submit or torenounce. The criticism of democratic societyshould not be that people are too selfish; this istrue but it is only a consequence of somethingelse. What democracy has not succeeded in is tomake the individual love himself; that is, to havea deep sense of affirmation for his individual self,with all his . . . potentialities. . . . The readinessfor submission, the pervert courage which isattracted by the image of war and self-annihil-ation, is only possible on the basis of a — largelyunconscious — desperation, stifled by martialsongs and shouts for the Führer. The individualwho has ceased to love himself is ready to die aswell as to kill. The problem of our culture, if it isnot to become a fascist one, is not that there is toomuch selfishness but that there is no self-love.17

One further point. True love knows no limits as to itsobjects. It cannot possibly attach itself, for instance, to theself and in so doing turn one from proper concern for others.Nor on the other hand can it be directed towards others and


14

require that one have no regard for oneself. No, its allinclusiveness is its hallmark, its distinguishing char-acteristic by which we may infallibly recognize it.

This may be easier to see in the case of the contraryrelationship, hate. Hate as a healthy specific reaction toan attack on something valued, is grounded like true lovein a positive attitude of affirmation of values and must bedistinguished from that poisonous hate which is a conditionof character, a fundamental, dormant, indiscriminatehatred, growing out of frustration and negativism, whichmay be stirred into action either by objects outside the selfor by the self itself. This chronic basic state of latenthostility is one of the major problems of our day. Few of usare conscious of it in ourselves, at most we perceive itsreflection — indifference to others. The majority are noteven aware of that, for we are socially well-adapted, we likepeople in a promiscuous, neutral way, and are in a state ofsuspended relationship, as it were, with ourselves. But wecannot help revealing our inner condition. As individualswe have feelings of inferiority, or an exaggerated tendencyto be self-critical, and especially do we betray ourselves inour treatment of ourselves as slaves, and don’t even knowit, giving to our conscience the false role of inwardmouthpiece of external authority. And as members of groupsor nations, we let our inner hostility appear even moreunmistakably, pooling it in the tragic anonymous world-wide destructiveness of our age.

Finally, let us remind ourselves of one more difficultyin understanding true self-love. It is inherent in the wordlove itself, a most mercilessly abused word, surely. Some ofus may be helped by paraphrases or new terminology, butultimately clarity of apprehension will come throughpersevering in investigation, through personal innerexperience.

And this leads us to our second question. What is theWay to Right Relatedness?


15

The Way To Right Relatedness

How do we come to the true creative love of self? Thereare many ways. Indeed, all life may be looked upon as theway. And that is a paradox, since the two great command-ments are themselves ways to life. Here we will touch ontwo aspects only of what is a continuous process.

1. Most of us come, some time or other, to the placewhere we must deliberately set out to become acquaintedwith ourself, a basic requirement obviously, yet often aneglected one. Here are examples of some simple ways ofmaking this acquaintance, of catching ourself off guard, asit were, for that is what we will have to do.

Listening to ourself, to the ever-flowing innerconversation we hold with ourself, is sometimes astonish-ingly revealing. At first it may be an effort even to hear thismonologue, but if we patiently pay attention, as to a childwho is learning to speak, it will emerge more and moreclearly. Then we can begin to sense something of the hopesand fears, the loves and hates that we live under the surface,and we can experiment with following out some of thoseindications.

Here are the observations of a woman who tried thisdevice for the first time when she was a mature person:

I have been helped during these last few yearsto sense out the difference between the self andthe Self, and to learn to watch and wait and feelin order to come as close as possible to what theSelf wants the self to do. I got my first big cluewhen it was suggested to me that I follow for aweek what I wanted to do — not what I thought Iwas supposed to do (by God or man). The planseemed too good to be true at first, and my old selffelt I must be on the wrong path when I did what Ireally wanted to do — but I found that though I at


16

the time seemed to have to choose not to do whatmy husband or immediate friends around wantedof me — that when I followed the spontaneousurge, I actually during a time of days or weeksdid achieve also what “they” wanted of me — but“their wanting” had to be removed as a motive, orI would be punctilious as a sense of duty and theninwardly or outerly hit out at “them” or at someother puppets outer or inner. And I’ve increasingenergy all the time to do more and more, when Ikeep to the “spontaneous” way.

Observing our spontaneous reactions, especially ouremotional reactions, to persons and events, may also helpus discover ourselves. On occasion it is valuable to writedown these reactions, in the form of conversation, forinstance, or to express them in other ways, such as painting,and dancing.

It should be noted that to cultivate a respect for ourpotentialities, to trust our inner self, may be necessarybefore we can even enter into any kind of working agreementwith it. The following paragraph was written by the womanquoted above:

To me the Self is the Lord in the statement:“The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom”. . . in the sense that we should “fear” and treatwith awe the life force in us, the God in us.Otherwise we are people trying to keep new winein old bottles (i.e. a god in a physical body thatdoesn’t accept that it houses a god). Then the godsprings out like the geni from the bottle driven bycompulsions — or tantrums and restlessness —all signs that the god can’t be bottled up.

This inner Self may call my bluff by reactingon my blood and heart-beat (different physical


17

symptoms for different people) until I admit: “Yes.I have concealed my true Self in order to convincenot only others but even myself that I was being“good,” “dutiful,” “loving,” “cooperative,” “quakerly”. . . but when this Self calls my bluff, I have togive in and admit: “All right then — you and I can’tlive in the same physical house — one of us hasto give in — and naturally the Self has to win forme to survive.”

So we see that this elementary process of gettingacquainted with ourself implies a certain amount ofobjectivity, a readiness to see and acknowledge the realityof elements usually hidden and not always agreeable to face.But all religions and all men of insight, and we ourselveswhen we are free or desperate enough to be honest, knowthat the accepting and assimilating of these hiddenelements is a necessity. We are dual in nature and ourtask and our glory is to balance the opposites in ourself, tohold them in an ever-renewed polarity of creative tension.

Some of the early followers of Jesus were so convincedof this primary duty of reconciling the opposites within theself that they interpreted much of his teaching to apply tothis inner problem. Thus, in the 2nd century A.D. we havethe Gnostics rewording Matthew 5:23-25 as follows:

If therefore thou art offering thy gift at thealtar, and there rememberest that thou hast aughtagainst thyself, leave there thy gift before thealtar and go thy way; first be reconciled to thyselfand then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thyselfquickly, whilst thou art in the way with thyself;lest haply thou deliverest thyself to the judge . . .

Increasing freedom from fear of inferiority is one ofthe earliest consequences of the growing ability to see and


18

assimilate the less known and less desirable elements ofourself. This is not “making a pact of friendship” with evil:Jesus did not condone evil but he also did not condemn thesinner, he accepted him.

In the noble and practical words of Francis de Sales,

Be patient with everyone, but above all, withyourself. I mean, do not be disheartened by yourimperfections, but always rise up with freshcourage. I am glad you make a fresh beginningdaily; there is no other means of attaining thespiritual life than by continually beginning again,and never thinking that we have done enough.How are we to be patient in bearing with ourneighbor’s faults, if we are impatient in hearingour own? He who is fretted by his own failings willnot correct them; all profitable correction comesfrom a calm, peaceful mind.18

To sum up this process of finding and assimilating thehidden self, I will quote a passage in one of George Fox’sletters which describes it with amazing insight andrefreshing imagery:

. . . And so, the Lord God Almighty keep you inhis Power and Wisdom and by it bind the unruly;and when ye have bound them, then ye may speakto them, and by it to fetter them; then ye maycatch them, when ye will, when they are fettered.And get the Yoke upon the wild Heifer; then willye save yourselves from a Push, and bring themdown, and order them with the Power, and reachto the witness. And see, that ye keep the Bit inthe Wild Horse’s mouth, whereby his Head maybe held down: And howsoever see that he bebridled, then with the Power he will be ordered,though he Snuffs and Snorts, the Bridle being kept


19

in his Mouth, he is held down by it: Though hecries ‘Aha, aha’; that is above the Witness. Andwhen this is done, being kept in the Power ye willknow him that Rides meekly upon the Foal of theAss . . . to Jerusalem, the highest place ofWorship. . . .19

2. But these deliberate, rational “devices,” whilenecessary to start most of us off on our voyage of discovery,will not lead us all the way, or indeed perhaps very far towardself-knowledge and self-understanding and self-love. Otherless logical, less “grown-up” procedures must be adopted.Two may be suggested: the one a somewhat specialized useof silence, the other, the deliberate use of symbols.

As we all know, messages come in various ways duringtimes of quiet. Words may be heard inwardly, and sometimeswill seem unintelligible. But we should pay attention to themand hold them in our mind and examine them and sift themlater. For some to whom music is meaningful a song or afragment of melody may sing itself in the silence,remembered or unknown. Or an image may arise. One suchvision, full of meaning for the one to whom it came, was ofa great river — the river of life — with many peoplestruggling or drifting in it as they were swept along. A fewon the banks called to those in the water and now and then,with pain and effort, some climbed onto the shore — intoconscious, responsible living.

We may find it worth while to write down any suchoverflowings into our conscious minds during our times ofsilent worship from the unlimited and uncharted deepswhich surround us. Even if reflection does not reveal atonce any logical meaning, let us file away these secretmessages, those at least that carry with them someemotional quality that makes them significant. Later, lifemay offer us the code. The favoring attitude, here again, isone of respect and a receptivity unhampered for the whileby the dissecting functioning of mind.


20

Symbols have been found of help by mankinduniversally and throughout the ages in tapping depths farbelow the level of words. We Friends of this generation arerealizing more and more that we need to turn to the richheritage that lies to our hand. For instance there is thesymbol of the garden, the enclosed garden with its four gatesand its cruxiform paths, and, where they intersect, alwayswater, a spring or a fountain or a well . . .

O but it happens every dayTo someone. Suddenly the wayLeads straight into their native lands,The temenos’ small wicket standsWide open, shining at the centreThe well of life, and they may enter.20

Or we can take the circle, or the cross, one ofhumanity’s most precious symbols — the individual evercrucified on the opposites of human nature. But better stillfor each to find and use his or her own symbols and in sodoing we may come to see the value of the “outward andvisible form”: the candle, the flower, the corner of desk ormantelpiece where our secret or family altar may takeshape, however crudely.

As a matter of fact, the question is not whether wewill make use of symbols or not. Rather is it a choicebetween a conscious and appropriate use of them and lettingthem sway and determine us without control on our part.The rationalist at one extreme, the unconscious religionistat the other, are always in danger of being overwhelmed bysome symbol which is imposed or imposes itself upon them.To ignore the tremendous role which symbols play for goodor evil in every one’s life means at the least turning from avery direct way of relating our self to our deepest self. Atrusting, imaginative use of the symbols that are to be foundnaturally as soon as we look around questingly for them,


21

may enrich and enliven our relation to ourself, andtherefore our relation to others, in unpredictable measure.Those of us who are privileged to have contact with youngchildren will be encouraged by their delighted anduninhibited response. “Except ye become as little children. . .” may be true partly because of this ability to see throughthe transparent envelope of fact the shining symbol of theinexpressible.

One final word. The dangers of pulling out of the riverof life onto the shore where increasing awareness is to behad are many and subtle. A certain loneliness is one result,however vital the sense of growing relationships. And therisks of taking a false path are constant. And so it is goodfor us to remind ourself frequently that we are not thecreators of our relationship with ourself, we do not make it,we prepare the way only, clear the ground, open the gates.Now we must learn the lesson of waiting and respectinglife’s tempo, the tempo of life’s coming:

The Kingdom of God is like a man who sowsthe seed in the ground. He sleeps by night andrises by day, while the seed springs up and grows— he knows not how. The earth bears crops ofitself: first the blade, then the head, then the fullgrown grain.21

Whenever we do that, do our part and our part alone inthis “desperate venture,” then comes the reward. Thenperchance it happens that we, rightly related to ourselves,know ourselves rightly related to all — and, greetingourselves in true love, we find we hold the hand of our fellow-man and that the hand of God holds both of ours. Then thewords of the psalmist may flash into new significance:

Lift up your heads, O ye gates,And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors!Welcome the King of Glory!


22

But who is this King of Glory?’Tis the Lord, strong and mighty,The Lord conquering from the fight.Lift up your heads, O ye gates,And be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors:Welcome the King of Glory!But who is the King of Glory?The Lord, God of hosts,He is the King of Glory.

NOTES

1. Gertrude Stein, Narration (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1935).

2. Thornton Wilder, in preface to Stein, Narration.3. Stein, op. cit.4. E. Graham Howe, Invisible Anatomy, (London: Faber and

Faber, 1944).5. To attempt to define the term “self” would take us far

beyond our purpose. Suffice it to mention that it is anambiguous term, the meaning of which is not agreedupon. It will be used variously within these pages, butthe contexts should help make it understandable.

6. Toni Wolfe, “Christianity Within,” Guild of PastoralPsychology, London, 42 (May, 1946), quoting “New Say-ings of Jesus,” Oxyrynchus Papyri.

7. Ibid.8. Ibid.9. Isaac Penington, Letters (Philadelphia: 1828)10. Mark 12:31-32, Revised Standard Version of the New

Testament, (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1946).11. Johannes Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion,

trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board ofChristian Education. 1928), III, 531. Quoted by ErichFromm in a paper. “Selfishness and Self-love,” reprinted


23

from Psychiatry, Journal of the Biology and Pathology ofInterpersonal Relations, November-, 1939. I am indebtedto Erich Fromm’s paper for much of the followingdiscussion.

12. Gerard Manley Hopkins, Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins(New York: Oxford University Press, 1930).

13. Friedrich Nietzsche, Works, XI, Thus Spake Zarathustra(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925).

14. It might be shown that these contradictory standardsare basic to our competitive economic system. ErichFromm, in the article referred to, has some suggestiveremarks on this point. “Don’t be selfish,” as a motto,equated with “don’t enjoy yourself, don’t do what youwant, do your duty, work,” may have had “an importantsocial function,” on the one hand in persuading themasses of workers that their lives of toil and sacrificeswere virtuous, and on the other in removing any possible“handicap on the economic initiative of business men,for whom it thereby became a virtue also to attend totheir personal advantage and be successful.”

15. Stephen Vincent Benet, John Brown’s Body (GardenCity, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1929).

16. Which is why we feel most satisfied with Luke’s versionof the great paradox in Jesus’ teaching, “Whoever seeksto gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life willpreserve it,” (Luke 17:33, Revised Standard Version) thesimplest, barest of the texts, shorn of dangerous appealto motivation in cause or person.

17. Erich Fromm, op. cit.18. St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to a Devout Life.19. George Fox, Epistle 195, Collection of Epistles, 169820. W. H. Auden, The Double Man (New York: Random House,

1941).21. Mark 4: 26-28. From the Modern English Version of Jesus

as Teacher, Henry B. Sharman, (China: 1939).

Documents

Willson Dora the Self to the Self