WHO AM I? (article)

The prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) says that a human being is born purely virtuous and divine, but it is the surrounding that shapes his being into something else. In other words, each one of us is born 100% virtuous and saint; however, throughout the process of living we might lose a bit, some or even all of that virtuousness, i.e. Humanness. I may conclude from this that to be fully human, we need to fight back in order to retain and save our divinity or, to be more realistic, at least to save as much of it as we can. It is not a matter of asking or searching for it; rather, it is going back to that person, to the bare me but each time with something different to add. This may be what distinguishes people from each other according to the outcome of each one's own battle.

This may contradict Exupery’s definition of perfection, where he claims that when something is perfect, that means there is nothing more to take away from it (as opposed to adding to it). However, it still implies that there is a change happening to the original state (be it an addition or omission). Furthermore, what is perfect any way? That is, perfection may not be reachable; therefore, Exupery may be suggesting that in the process of living (the kind of life in search of perfection), there should be a continuous change (again addition or omission) to what someone is.

In the same lines, the well known artist, Bicasu, claims that, “all children are born artists [divine], the problem is to remain [so] as we grow up”. However, this might be incomplete because the concept of “remaining so” implies a continuous process of endeavours to make and challenges to take. The result of this challenge is assumed to add to what the child already has or possesses, so this addition is the difference between the two MEs. Erick Faun believes that living is “continuous newbirths”; therefore, it is never the same me again. To illustrate further, “to remain so” may refer to getting back to that unique (pure) me with either a virtuous or a vicious addition.

The new vicious me, however, is different than the one reached out of success, for it tends to be a temporary state. This state is waiting for a decision over that situation (not the result which is the viciousness), either to step back or continue with it. Again either way still leads to a different me; i.e. the former may result in going back to the old me but with the addition of the new realization (of the failing process) and the latter could end up having a persona closer to the evil side.

In conclusion, this view should highlight a different aspect of the so-called mistake. That is, a mistake may be better seen as a failing process of living; nevertheless, it is not yet a trait for it is still a subject of examination by the committer. This might be part of the rational behind Ghandi’s famous statement, “hate the sin but love the sinner”. Yes, love the sinner by helping him get back to his virtuousness. But, that person himself should decide first on that result (the mistake), is it a virtuous or a vicious addition? In the end, the result of such decisions is all what I am now. That is, they are just additions caused by what people encounter and experience; that is why we are all different from each other, but in the end we all have something similar. We all have the same core, and that is what someone really is, not the additions