MEET THE AUTHOR AT THE BOOK SIGNING

This I believe: Who we are as beings is who we have "wanted" to be, whether we exactly KNEW it, consciously, or not. On some level, a real level, we have created ourselves (notwithstanding that there are other levels, other forces, that are partially deterministic). To accept responsibility for our lives, the way they have transpired, seems we must recognize the implications of our decisions. Have we not created who we are?

Obviously I lean heavily to the self-creation side. I understand that many people feel controlled by events, that their lives have not been their own. I tend toward the autobiographical self: we write a story that comes true as we author it. We unfold a narrative that we nearly entirely ourselves create, or at least in reaction to those events which seem to come to us unbidden.

Which is it? Is the Universe purely chaotic? Or, do we in some way, somehow, exert some control--again, whether we are conscious of it or not?

Wouldn't it be a nice, possibly highly beneficial, exercise to begin thinking we have a great deal of control, and begin to act as if we do, and as a result, possibly influence the outcomes? But, when things do not SEEM to go our way, we take the attitude that that is okay, too?

Is this too much idealism? Or, is the reality (one reality) that there is power, much power, in positive thinking, and good storytelling--the telling of the story that we have chosen to make happen.

I understand that this kind of thinking brings up a host of philosophical, psychological, theological, and spiritual issues of what it means to be human, what is the I we seem to take as real, what is consciousness, and so on--what in social science is called "agency," a kind of sovereignty of the self.

Let me cut short this line of thinking by saying that the question of selfhood has been long recognized as problematic, including by the ancient Greeks. In the sixth century BC the Buddha claimed that the self is just a name or label given to something that does not really exist. So, if you reread what I wrote above about controlling at least some of our own destiny, the question comes up as to whom, or what, does the controlling. Perhaps it is a beneficial illusion to believe we as individuals actually DO control our life trajectories, in that there might be some power in the praxis.

In any case, it is late, and "I" need to retire for the evening (now 1 a.m.), so that "I" might dream of a "reality" to continue "writing" "my" continuing lifestory.

SUSAN BOYLE AND SIMULACRUM SELF

Insta-celebrity, Scotswoman Susan Boyle has gobsmacked the TV/Youtube world because talent, as is usually thought, must glam itself for presentation, for acceptability. Glamorous she is not.

She has said she does not want to much change herself in adjustment to her newfound fame because it would not be real, it would not be she, her authentic self.

Good for her. Good for us all, as we see an authentic person (at least for now) who just might remain so. Why become a spectacle? Why become a simulacrum of oneself, in which image becomes more "real" than the formerly "real?" And, in which the formerly "real" self gets lost in a funhouse of mirrors, with the way out permanently obscured?

Money, fame, career are terribly tempting. The loss of self must be weighed against winning the world--a dilemma I'm glad I do not have.

It will be interesting to watch Miss Boyle. In some ways I hope she steps back from front stage and dissolves back into a real life. In other ways, would it not be hopeful and inspiring to observe her build a singing career but remain homely, shy, unassuming, unadulterated--and real?

Good luck, Miss Boyle. You'll need to think hard about this turn of events. You'll need to hold onto a self that could get unreal real fast.