Dispute in reply to the response to Entry 218.
“Why is there an assumption that roles do not correlate to who we are in a fundamental level of being?
What evidence shows that roles can NOT equal one’s fundamental level of being?
The assumption that seems to be made by you here is that there is
1) the fundamental level, and then, there are
2) masks, and
3) the masks are the roles.
4) roles do not correlate to fundamental level of being.
But why that assumption? If one takes all of the roles one plays, both with other people and with self, which is quite doable through introspection and maturity, does not one know themselves (by following the threads that appear in common through all roles) on a fundamental level, while also being?”
Kenneth Udut May 19 2001
The response I received was:
What are roles? They are conscious phenomenon. Where do they come from? Through our sensory and thought process, we create conscious phenomenon, including roles.
Since we cannot create who we are through who we are, conscious phenomenon are not equal to our fundamental level of being or who we are.
If you want to challenge this line of reasoning, then you face the problem of more reasonably showing how conscious phenomenon can either come directly from the external world or be an innate part of our consciousness.
Also, since roles themselves are apparently not our fundamental level of being, but simply phenomenon we exist from, then any threads we ascertain through roles are also not our fundamental level of being. In other words, our fundamental level of being is separate from roles and the perceived threads pertaining to them, while at the same time using them to manifest itself. So as we stated in our Response to Entry 218, there is a limited connection between roles and their perceived threads, and our fundamental level of being, which pertains to the limited connection between what we know and what really is.