Humans exist through separation. A community is primarily a unity of separations. If being separate is what makes a human, why does one rush to the community as if denying their existence? If to separate is to exist for a human, why? Is becoming one with a community a condition of existence for a human? Yes. But how? With its two opposing conditions of existence, a human is nothing but a paradox that denies itself. It is human both in its separation and in its unification. These two fundamental qualities never part ways in it. Human existence emerges from this tension in the world. Since a human is the child of a paradox that denies itself, its life is possible through denial. By denying its separation in unity (being a part of the community), it becomes “human” by denying separation in unity. In every state and outcome, a human is denial. A human is a liar who cannot but lie. Denying its lying is a necessity determined by its conditions of existence. Unless a human says, “I am both separate and not until I am one, I am both and neither,” that is, unless it confesses itself, it cannot escape lying. A human is either a confessor or a liar. In its separation, a human is secretive, mysterious; in its non-existence until it unites, it is an open being. In separation, it has personality; in unity, it has identity.
Humans are trapped between personality and identity. Merging the two is impossible. Perhaps they could be reconciled or kept together in peace. But how can these two things, one existing in separation and the other in unity, reconcile in a human? After all, a human was already a being that could exist as one of them. We understand that a human can hold these together through “lies.” This human is not yet capable of having both personality and identity. Therefore, it can only hold them together by exploiting one for the benefit of the other. For this human, finding itself within an identity at the moment of birth, owning a personality is almost impossible. It is an identified human. The development of a personality to certify its separation in it is nearly impossible. Yet, we see that it still has a consciousness of being separate, oddly enough, it has a personality. This original and authentic personality is actually a will to exist clustered around a sense of self and more so, selfishness. The colors that form an original personality have been replaced by variables related to the anxiety of existence and the desire to possess in this fake personality. Instead of the original differences of personality, ruleless variables will appear. The original personality of the identified human can only be observed through the window of madness because an original personality in its true form is a mad thing. To approach it, to embody it, it must give up both the knowledge of identity and what it thought was personality. This means the self-annihilation of the identified human. To self-annihilate, that is, to experience madness. Not even to experience, but to look at madness with empty eyes. The “being” adventure of a human in the world can be described in this way. With its authentic existence, in the restless tension between personality and identity, and with its fakes, in the false peace under the influence of heavy drugs. Accepting the accuracy of this description, we won’t have solved anything, only returned to the paradox mentioned at the beginning. If the paradox is right before our eyes, we are in the right place. This means that whatever we do from now on, we must keep the paradox in our field of vision, on our path, and even in our way of action.
The identified human is not alone; it is together with the personalized human. Sometimes it is one of them, sometimes both. Identities and personalities are exchanged. In this world, a human has not yet met the will to “be.” It exists nominally and formally but is merely a whim. What it can and cannot be has been dictated. Its personality, the proof of its separation, is the same. Under its will-less identity, a worm nests.
A human does not know the meaning of both its separation and its unity. At times, it denies its existence in separation and attacks it, at times it glorifies separation and declares war on being united. Most of the time, it conducts a balance policy between the two.
Is truth the reason and founder of this game? Is it the truth that says run to the rabbit, hold to the hound? We can’t say it isn’t, at least. A human is a fragmented being even when its name exists. It has no power to unite (to be). The life of the world has succeeded in uniting the human fragmented by truth and brought forth the “worldly human.” Contrary to what is known, the “worldly human” is, contrary to popular belief, a person of faith and religion. The classification of knowledge, as well as religion and faith, which are not worldly in nature, are elements that constitute the integrity of the worldly human.
In the worldly human, the consciousness of singularity (separation) and unity (being a part of the community) are even in worldly standards fake. However, even if the worldly consciousness somehow manages to eliminate this fakeness, it cannot escape falseness in the eyes of truth. Because by denying the fundamental truth of conflict, that is, the naturalness and legitimacy of fragmentation, truth has certified unity and conflict as a defect. Here, the emphasis on truth is of course made through the integrity and fragmentation of a single human being. Otherwise, when we evaluate the distinctions of integrity and fragmentation within the framework of “realities” offered by the knowledge values of history-culture-civilization with the classification of worldly consciousness, we would already be unjustified in continuing this discussion. That is, our discussion is not related to the historical-cultural-civilizational “conflict between individual and society.” Because by saying “worldly human,” we indicated that the actual human being discussed is different, thus both our perspective and the “human” we are looking at are separate. This is the distinction between what exists and what should exist. The worldly human is the existing human, the other, which is not present, is the human of truth, the human that should exist. After making this distinction, we will see that this distinction also fits into the consciousness and reality of the “worldly human,” otherwise, it would remain abstract. The person we are addressing, trying to converse and reconcile with, is the worldly human, and all we have here is this “distinction” we have expressed. So, is the depiction of the “human that should be,” which we point to with our distinction, extracted from the circle of worldliness through imagination and phantasm? No. We have a message to which we are connected with faith, non-worldly. When we stand against worldly consciousness, the worldly human, and the world, faith is the ground we stand on.
Therefore, our Human is neither the human of sociology nor of psychology. The knowledge forms that are natural extensions of Human’s fragmentation have nothing true to say about the authentic human. Because the knowledge they have about humans is based on the assumptions of the historical-cultural-civilizational human. The fragmentation of the Authentic Human can only find its meaning in the belief in God. Although we have no right to deny or belittle the belief in God that a human being reaches on its own, this belief does not bring us any news, cannot bring any, so the only source that can diagnose the meaning of the Authentic Human’s fragmentation is revelation. What does revelation say about the “separate being” and “united being” of Human? We can certainly provide some answers to this question by calling upon the history of faith. However, we will see that revelation speaks as if there is no such problem. Revelation addresses Human sometimes as “you” and sometimes as “you all.” It seems impossible to say whether revelation considers Human as a community or as an individual.
Revelation seems to say that when it speaks of a quality or a state of Human, this quality and this state are not different in an individual human or in a human community. Does revelation not accept the individual-community distinction discovered by worldly human? If so, did we make a mistake at the beginning by stating that human, stemming from its individuality, cannot be human without being part of a community? When we accept the timelessness of revelation and its priority over both the world and life, we cannot even think that the questions a human being, a created being, can ask about itself and existence could have been unforeseen. What is certain is that although revelation implicitly accepts the existence of this conflict, it does not see it as a problem. Revelation, coming from a mysterious source in a mysteriously mysterious way, says that human is also a mysterious being and calls human to respect this mystery. In essence, are we saying that the problem of human fragmentation is not a problem? On the contrary. The fragmentation of human is a problem and has brought with it some legitimate questions. However, as far as we understand from revelation, God has not entrusted the solution of this problem to human. The only answer we can find here is that the problem of human fragmentation is “mysterious.” There is not a single messenger who says that this mystery should or could be solved. The one interested in solving the mystery is the historical-cultural-civilizational human, that is, the worldly human. What remains?
We said that revelation is the only meaningful material regarding human fragmentation. Revelation, ignoring human fragmentation, speaks with language, which is the only place (space, dimension) where human wholeness is ensured, and this is not at all surprising. Language is the medium of both humanity and individual humans. It is the medium, meaning both the middle and the means. So much so that in language, like humans, there is fragmentation, personality, and identity. In language, one can act honestly or lie. And in language, one of God’s secrets is a secret.
Human existence is a Gordian knot of being and non-being. Human, destined for instability between being and non-being, desires to permanently close the door that is a gateway to salvation. Human, identified by markers of maturity and competence by worldly reason, is only alert to the delusions of maturity and competence. Moreover, when God has granted human a unique personality and a noble essence. It has scorned and belittled what it found challenging, rushing towards the stark concrete polished by worldly reason. Now the question at hand is: Is the existential instability of human truly terrifying? Due to the negative nature of its structure, beautifying the meaning of instability is indeed a difficult task. Despite being a negative being, human has a strong inclination towards being. It desires to be, to achieve a positive existence. It avoids defining itself with the negativity of things it is not and cannot be. Yet, it is as much non-being as it is being. An ungrateful, hasty, impatient being. As if the only place it’s rushing to isn’t death, it hurries with eagerness. Its apparent sole ailment is the dissatisfaction stemming from its existential instability, leading to a sense of worthlessness. Yet, with this feeling, it has only managed to scorn the value bestowed upon it by God. With its worldly reason, against this scorn it has birthed, it has comfortably erected false personalities, false identities.
Yes, human has fallen. In its fall was a divine wisdom, a divine secret, and falling was merely an accident for it. Yet, with a demonic desire, human directed the vengeance of its fall towards its existential being, embracing degradation. Degradation was nothing but affirming the fall and the fallen place. Degradation was not seeing any harm in forgetting the original existence – despite all signs, reminders, and warnings. Degradation was finding satisfaction in the fake identities and personalities dressed by worldly reason and intellect. Degradation was inventing a language that could play with the originals of names, turning words inside out. In this language, to call the right wrong, the beautiful ugly, is no longer just degraded; it is the epitome of degradation.
Here, our issue is not to eliminate a conflict. While diagnosing and affirming the existential foundations of the conflict, we are not after attributing a kind of “legitimacy” to the troublesome situations created by this unresolved problem. Saying that the conflict itself is existential does not mean we can eliminate its source. We cannot eliminate the conflict between identity and personality. At this point, the only principle we can cling to, embrace, is the reality that the human being, the subject of faith, is in trouble with its own existence, that human’s greatest struggle is against its own existence. The human being, the subject of faith, cannot side with either personality or identity (even if these are the “pure human’s” personality and identity).
Faith, without dwelling too much on this reality, simply calls to comply with “do-don’t” commands. Why? The word of faith certainly gives us some clues in this regard, but moving from these clues, the only truth we can reach without leaving any room for debate will again be the human existence at the source of the conflict, and this text calls us not to stray from the main issue and our main responsibility with new efforts whose outcome is already known. What remains is the mystery of both the conflict and the human as a contentious area. It is clear that no benevolent result has been obtained from this issue debated for centuries. Those who claim to have solved this mystery have not been able to reach a single sentence that could affect, improve, or significantly influence the current way of life. While the mystery itself (human and life) maintains its existence unchanged, in a sense, what could be the point of trying to solve the “behind-the-scenes” mystery? Tragedy and comedy are elements that constitute the existential reality of human, yes, but we have neither the reason nor the time to be extra tragically comedic. In the end, stating the known, let’s also declare it. This outcome cannot have any influence on the action expected by faith from human. While “the word of faith” invites human to comply with a “do-don’t” command in this truth, thinking about how we will determine and shape our action with the “do-don’t” command, choosing action as a field of struggle instead of continuing to probe the mystery left by faith is engaging in futility. Faith wants to divert our engagement towards “good” by pulling it away from futility. The human bewildered by worldly intellect, however, directs all its effort towards the “futile.”
We hope for a decision from the unstable. It seems like this is what faith expects from us. Equating faith with hope in this way is possible. Understanding faith is also a possibility in this context. We no longer ask how the unstable will come to a decision. What we are curious about is what decision it will make. Decision is a necessity, because without it, there is no faith. The unstable must not know what decision it will make. It must fear its confidence so that it does not forget it must trust its fear. It cannot seek refuge in the world, nor can it in language. In its decision, there is nothing in this world that can help it. Faith has imposed a challenge far beyond personality and identity on it. With its mind, heart, body, and soul, it faces this challenge. Therefore, it will remain known as the unstable. When its eyes are tied with faith, it becomes an acrobat who can move more easily, more agilely. This acrobatics is, of course, relative to the worldly eye and worldly intellect.
