We will take this search for the essence of truth and falsehood with the mask in a quasi-spirited manner of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger never really sought "truth" per se, just the essence of truth. "Truth" is a rather subjective and arbitrary thing, so falsehood would also be relatively arbitrary thing as well. He felt that understanding the essence of anything begins with the concepts originally behind the words we use to describe things. This is principle that relates to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that our language limits or enhances our realities depending on the extent of our vocabulary. Thus Heidegger was rather fascinated by etymology, particularly with Greek and Latin, since most of our lexicon derives from these languages. Understanding what certain words meant to ancient peoples would enlighten our understanding of how we use derivatives of these words today. How we use a word today is a sort of masking of the true root of the word somewhere in the past. In some regard Heidegger's philosophy is suitable to our search in the nature (or essence) of the mask. We are not really trying to find the true face of the actor, but rather how to understand the essence of the actor (that is ourselves) by way of the mask, which can tell us more about the actor itself than the actor ever could on their own.
As discussed before, the mask is an imprint, a reflection of the true face of the person (persona) who wears it. So the mask is a sort of temporary identity, an identity we can wear for one audience, and then swap for another identity later. We all lead double and triple (and multiple) lives. But what is this thing we call identity? Well the word itself comes from Latin, id entis, meaning "it is of the thing." (Id being the nominative form meaning "it;" entis being the genative form of ens, meaning "thing"). Ens comes from esse, the infinitive form of the verb to be. So we can think of the word identity meaning, etymologically, as "it is of the thing that is being" or "it being of the thing that is." This is a fine example of the Epicurean philosophy of the signified and signifier (what is meant and what is said). There is an idea of an entity behind the mask, but what it is doesn't matter as far as identity is concerned. The word identity has little to do with the thing itself (the signified), but rather with the thing that it stands in for (the signifier). Identity has more in common with the mask than with the true nature of the actor. In a way we can think of the mask as being able to define us far more than we can define ourselves.
It should start to become clear that we have more in common with our personas than we do with ourselves, and that we become the masks we wear. All of this should start to make us think that our identities and personalities are detached from our true selves; whatever that is. It may start to feel like we are all hollow shells of masks with no real substance behind them. But what is this abstract notion of "true self?" Could you even identify with it, if all you can relate to is the tangible notions of personality and identity? But then again, how can we identify with the thing-ness of a tree (treen-ess), when we can only comprehend the essence (esse - to be) of the thing that stands in for the tree (the word "tree")? We relate to signifiers more than we do signifieds. We relate to masks more than we relate to "true selves" because we never get to see the true face of anyone.
We are treating the mask and the true face as two different things, which can be beneficial to explore them as such. But thinking of them as reflections of each other, and thinking of both duality and reflection simultaneously, we open up new broad avenues. Thus, in another regard, it is as if the lie is an impression of the truth, and, if I may paraphrase Picasso, the mask is the lie that becomes the truth. The lie is not the truth, but it represents it so much, and since we are not privileged to the truth, the lie is the truth as far as the truth will allow it. (It should be obvious at this point that truth and true face are interchangeable words, as well as lie is interchangeable with mask).
I mentioned previously that the mask does not conceal the truth, but rather contains the truth. And what truth that is! Harry Frankfurt makes a clear distinction between "lie" and "bullshit," and bullshit is always more dangerous than the lie. A lie acknowledges that there is a truth that it conceals. So within a lie is the truth, only hidden. But bullshit denies there is a truth. Bullshitting is acting like one knows what they're talking about without even knowing the actual truth. So masks are not bullshit, they're holding a truth that has yet to be revealed. Given that a falsehood is formed from the truth, just like the mask is formed from the visage of the actor. The falsehood and the mask are both a making of the truth.
I had mentioned before how face comes from facere, "to make" or "to do." There is another similar word in Latin, agere, which means "to lead, do, make." A person who leads/does/makes is called an actor. It is also where we get the word agent, meaning "they lead/do/make." An actor is an agent that makes/does. Masking is always a process of making our identities. We make our identities so that we may define ourselves. Just like our little ball of putty, when we press into it the other side of the ball is deformed as a reflection of the form pressed into the ball. Truth is not independent of the lie. Where there is truth there is falsehood. If you tell the truth you inadvertently told a lie. The face makes the mask, and the truth makes the lie, because the face needs the lie to express itself (the signified needs the signified to express it); the truth needs the lie to express it. The idea of the tree, the essence of "tree-ness" (the signified, what is meant) needs the word "tree" to express it (the signifier, what is said). This is why we relate to signifiers more than signifieds.
To summarize the previous two posts and this one: the mask is a falsehood that is an expression of the truth. It is born from truth, nurtured by it, shaped and formed from it. The nature of the mask is the essence of the being behind the false visage. In short, the mask is the essence of being, in Heidegger's phrasing. It is the identity, since it (id) is from the entity (entis). Identities and personas are all masks, and they are the expression the abstract "truth" that lies behind it. Sadly, we can't have this truth. We are the men tied down in Plato's cave watching shadows on the wall. We cannot turn our heads and see the objects that cast these shadows. As said before, the truth may be something we don't want to see.
I apologize for not having any art examples to explore these ideas, but we have enough etymological examples. So you can just enjoy a picture of the grotesque mask on the keystone of Porta Pia by Micky.
No comments:
Post a Comment