Within Western thought, there grows a malignant tumor of Self. This tumor is no ordinary incidence of biological deviance, but possesses a malign cunning of which the serpent would be envious. For this tumor is a shape shifter of masterful talent, able to take on those forms which are most suitable for its dark task; the removal and defamation of objective morality, and the elevation of subjective individual ethics to the sole determinate of human behavior. The indicators of this growth are everywhere and can be seen in the highest and most visible establishments of society. Politicians and social superstars inform us that it is perfectly acceptable to terminate marriages if some other individual crawls out of the woodwork, as long as they are out “true love.” Music and television tell us that it is admissible to utilize individuals for sexual gratification, if the mood strikes us, and possibly if there is mutual consent, whether such consent is sober or not. What these examples demonstrate is that society as a whole has come to define itself as an institution ruled by the sovereign Self, regardless of the detrimental cost.
What, exactly, is meant by the sovereign Self? By sovereign Self, I am referring most importantly to the tendency to ferociously and perniciously defend one’s or another’s behaviors solely on the grounds of desire, as if temporal and transitory feeling is enough to justify detrimental behaviors towards oneself and others; as if simply wanting something is significant justification to make that want a reality. Say, for instance, a friend of mine is married to a woman of whom I am quite enamored. Would my feelings of attraction excuse an adulterous relationship? My friend would say no, for I would have wronged him in a very substantial way, which, if the situation were given even a modicum of honest thought, would be an obvious outcome of such actions. Yet regardless of the evident pains, I do it anyway. This is the sovereignty of the Self; regardless of repercussions, the will is exercised in order to satisfy those feelings which have been given a place of false transcendence and preeminence.
The problem lies in the nature of human feelings and emotions, in the sense that these are always temporary. There has never been a human emotion which has lasted, without a single second of cessation, over any length of time. Surely an individual can hold a grudge, but that does not imply the person is angry every second of everyday, nor that such incessant anger is even possible. Given this, can a temporary state be used to explain a behavior adequately? The truth, frankly, is no. Given that feelings change, emotions shift and even once great passions grow cold, putting oneself at complete service solely to these turbulent tides is bound to end in unhappiness as desire changes. In the above example a potentially lifelong friendship is irreparably damaged by actions driven by a desire which is, in comparison, simply momentary, and that is only part of the loss. one cannot measure the loss of personal integrity, or the destruction of trust in those who witness the situation from the outside. Through the destruction wrought by this adultery, through pursuing lust in the form of Self expression or, even more ironically, personal “freedom,” have in fact generated more restrictions then were currently present. In a very real sense then, it can be said that through the exercising of a disordered desire, an individual does not become free, but instead becomes enslaved to that desire.
While the nature of such situations seems obvious, as each individual knows it is difficult to ignore the pull of the disordered heart. After all, with all of creation being good, is it not natural that the individual be moved to wonder at each and every thing? Is such distraction along the path of life truly a disorder or is it a natural expression of the human will? The answers to both questions would be yes, save for one absolutely critical aspect of mankind’s design; humans cannot cause themselves to be. My parents planted the seeds which would blossom into my human life, as did their parents before, and so on into the dark abyss of time. But if I could not initiate my own life, and neither could my ancestors, from whence did this life originally stem? God, as the trunk of the tree of existence, stands as the origin of the life contained within His creation; He is truly the only non-contingent being. Life is, in itself, a gift from God, and as with any gift, it has a predetermined purpose determined by the Giver. Portrayed in a strictly secular context, if loving grandparents bestow upon their progeny a substantial personal check of $1000 to spend on college textbooks, their intention is not that the child spend it on hard drugs, women and booze. Such an action would be disrespectful and more than a tad bit deviant.
The meaning behind this portrait of blissful collegiate profligacy is a knotty one. First, the grandparents, as the givers of something which cannot theoretically be attained solely by the student, represent the role of God in relation to His creation. Creation, just like the $1000, was set forth with a specific purpose and for certain reasons, and each part of creation has its own specific role to play. Given that the cosmos cannot create itself, it is obliged to follow the intentions set down by God, just as the student is obliged to spend the $1000 wisely. Secondly, the foolishness demonstrated by the student in his imprudent expenditures represents the havoc a doctrine of a sovereign Self can wreak upon an individual. Through placing transitory good above the long term goals of perfection found in the realization of one’s intended purpose, the student has wounded himself for the sake of pleasure; and as many have sadly experienced, belligerent self-justification is often the domain of the foolish. This foolishness leads into the third point, a comment on God’s Grace. Unlike the student's imperfect and ontologically wounded grandparents, God possesses perfect forgiveness and offers undying Grace; all that is necessary is acceptance of that Grace. If, however, a sense of self-justification is employed in the defense of inordinate desires and, like the student, there is a flagrant refusal to accept that such deviant actions were in fact wrong, then there is, in effect, a refusal of the gift of Grace and everything that entails. Just as such a stubborn student’s collegiate life will abruptly end for lack of finances, so too will the eternal life of the faithful be lost to the individual unwilling to humble the Self before its true Creator, and place the intentions and laws set forth by its Lord over its own temporal desires.
Given the tragically short diagnostic of the sovereign Self given above, the tumor takes on a more definite shape, its nature becoming somewhat more lucid. The sovereign Self dresses itself in the robes of transcendence, fooling the will into thinking it is God. However, through exercising the tools of a honed reason, such a tumor can be removed. But such a process is neither short nor simple, and the sovereign Self continues to rule over its unhinged domain as a petty and mean tyrant. The reality is that the sovereign self is a deranged despot, and that there exists a far more benevolent, eternal and wise Lord waiting patiently to administer the miracle of Grace to the impoverished and disillusioned.
