221. Entry: 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. Therefore, 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.
