“Disguise” is found whenever/wherever one finds a man, woman, or child not living his nature.

From “Spiritual Laws”:

A little consideration of what takes place around us every day would show us, that a higher law than that of our will regulates events; that our painful labors are unnecessary, and fruitless; that only in our easy, simple, spontaneous action are we strong, and by contenting ourselves with obedience we become divine. Belief and love, — a believing love will relieve us of a vast load of care. O my brothers, God exists. There is a soul at the centre of nature, and over the will of every man, so that none of us can wrong the universe.

From that I infer the following:

Nature “obeys” this higher law (God/Spiritual Laws) not because it knows it should, or because it’s the right thing to do; nature obeys the law, i.e. lives true to itself, because it has no other choice. One might even say nature “lacks the will” to do anything else but adhere to the law. Consequently, nature is both reliable and predictable. It means that an electron will always behave as an electron should behave; if it doesn’t, don’t fault the electron; fault the physics professor who told us how an electron should live. It’s also why we’re able to have tide charts, and know exactly what time the sun will rise and fall on any given day of the year. It means that should you find yourself standing between a grizzly bear and her cub, you can be confident that while you’re being maul to death, mamma bear does so because it’s her nature to protect her young and NOT because of the callous remark you made about her cocktail dress at the office Christmas party. The point is that everything in nature behaves exactly as it should; it has no hidden agenda, or expectations; it means (I say with the utmost respect toward life, as well as to distinguish a subtle, yet significant point) when a suicide jumper steps off a bridge deck, he/she does so knowing (dare I say trusting) that gravity will be truthful. Not true to the jumper, but true to it’s self. It’s why Emerson says in “Self-Reliance, “if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” It’s why we don’t accuse/fault gravity for the death of the individual jumping from the bridge. It’s also why we can never negotiate a deal with gravity – or mamma bear for that matter. It’s impossible. And that brings me to my next point.

The relationship, the connection, shared between all that we see in nature doesn’t come from some contract or treaty. You won’t find a Pollination Pact signed by the bees and flowers. The connection/relationship derives from everything behaving as it should, i.e. being truthful to it’s self; it simply is an extension/metaphor of the Spiritual Laws, the visible of the invisible. Therefore, one never has to be suspicious of nature, that what you see is what you get. The being said, we, too, are part of nature; we’re simply an extension of those same laws that govern over everything we see. “There is a soul at the centre of nature, and over the will of every man, so that none of us can wrong the universe.” Or, as Cecil B. deMille said: “It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law.” It’s reasonable, then, to say that if the universe, i.e. God/Spiritual Laws/Truth can never be wronged, and that nature always behaves as it should, then “disguise” comes about when each of us is unwilling [I don’t believe Emerson would allow us to say ‘unable’] to follow the rules and live the life we were meant to live, and instead live the life we want to live. It’s why I agree with Potter who said, “So no matter how much we try to run away or disguise the truth, we cannot.” The truth, as I understand Emerson, is identical to our calling:

“Each man has his own vocation. The talent is the call. There is one direction in which all space is open to him. He has faculties silently inviting him thither to endless exertion. He is like a ship in a river; he runs against obstructions on every side but one; on that side all obstruction is taken away, and he sweeps serenely over a deepening channel into an infinite sea. This talent and this call depend on his organization, or the mode in which the general soul incarnates itself in him. He inclines to do something which is easy to him, and good when it is done, but which no other man can do. He has no rival. For the more truly he consults his own powers, the more difference will his work exhibit from the work of any other.”

The question is: has there ever been an individual who, according to Emerson, has lived the life he/she was meant to live. Emerson says yes, but only one: Jesus.

“One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, `I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.’

So why doesn’t Emerson suggest we study Jesus? Probably because we tried, and ended up with institutions run by men dictating to the rest of us how we should live. Instead, Emerson says we need to observe nature, that only nature can be trusted to reveal what living the truth looks like: easy, simple, and spontaneous. But it’s not just that nature will reveal truth, it’s that nature will always reveal the truth. And this is why I believe Emerson singles Jesus out as the only one who has lived according to his nature. That Jesus was the only one whose life was void of “disguise”, that his entire life revealed/responded with nothing but truth. Now Emerson would say most of us have undoubtedly experienced times when we have lived a life according to our nature. But ask us about those moments and Emerson says we should take no credit:

“Men of an extraordinary success, in their honest moments, have always sung, `Not unto us, not unto us.’” and that “Their success lay in their parallelism to the course of thought, which found in them an unobstructed channel; and the wonders of which they were the visible conductors seemed to the eye their deed. Did the wires generate the galvanism? It is even true that there was less in them on which they could reflect, than in another; as the virtue of a pipe is to be smooth and hollow. That which externally seemed will and immovableness was willingness and self-annihilation.”

This is why I (and I assume for Potter and others too?) enjoy reading Emerson. I’m unable to find Emerson (the man) in the written works of Emerson.

Redding also asks: “Why, if truth appears frequently in disguise, has Emerson held back from giving advice on how to discern the truth when it comes disguised?

What I think Redding may unknowingly be asking is: why doesn’t Emerson give advice on how to discern right from wrong?

Either way, the answer is the same; that is, I don’t believe Emerson does hold back. I’d argue that Emerson, in fact, has been telling us the entire time how to discern the truth: Simply live according to your nature. And by doing so, you don’t have to discern truth whether it comes disguised or not. Because either way, you’ll respond the way you should, i.e. according to your nature, and not the way you want to, i.e. according to your will.

Dorothy Day said this about giving to the poor: “Give only if you have something you must give; give only if you are someone for whom giving is its own reward.”

Like Emerson, Dorothy Day is saying that we should follow our nature, and that we should give to the poor only if giving is in our nature. So, the next time a poor person approaches you for money, if you’re living according to your nature, you won’t worry about whether or not you’re being conned, or what they’ll do with the money, or whether your boyfriend/girlfriend will love you less/more. If it’s in your nature to give, then give. If not, then don’t give. Like Emerson said:

“What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and in intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness. It is the harder, because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it. It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”

The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From Emerson’s Spiritual Laws

A little consideration of what takes place around us every day would show us, that a higher law than that of our will regulates events; that our painful labors are unnecessary, and fruitless; that only in our easy, simple, spontaneous action are we strong, and by contenting ourselves with obedience we become divine. Belief and love, – a believing love will relieve us of a vast load of care. O my brothers, God exists. There is a soul at the centre of nature, and over the will of every man, so that none of us can wrong the universe.

A few observations:

Both Emerson and The D. of I. claim there is an authority greater than mankind

Neither gives us a clear definition of that authority – if only because it’s not the intent of either document – but each are clear that it does exists, that it is “self-evident”, that if we only take a careful look around us we would come to the same conclusion.

This authority has given mankind particular Rights

The Declaration of Independence names three: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Emerson, however, talks about being obedient. But I don’t believe that is what Emerson is saying if only because he than says that if we are obedient we “become divine.” And what could be a better reward than divinity? Now what if we replaced the word “Rights” with “Purpose”? Would it change the essence of the Declaration? Or, instead of Emerson’s line where he says “that only in our easy, simple, spontaneous action are we strong, and by contenting ourselves with obedience we become divine.” could he just as easily said “that only by fulfilling our Purpose are we strong, and when we satisfy that Purpose we become divine.”

These Rights (Our Purpose) cannot be taken away nor can we surrender them

Now I don’t believe either The D. of I. or Emerson (at least the passages I’m quoting today) explicitly say that, but I believe I’m safe inferring it. After all, to say our Rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator is to also say then that they are not granted to us by some manmade institution. (Now to say they are not granted to us by our own institutions is not to say that it’s impossible for them to do so. Or is it?) Consequently, these manmade institutions have no authority to take away what is/always has been ours. (Are there any constitutional lawyers and/or Emersonian scholars out there who can set me straight if I’m wrong?) Furthermore, just as one cannot take them away, we are unable to given them up (in a manner of speaking). This is why I think it’s reasonable to suggest that these Rights are synonymous with Purpose. And if that’s true, then to surrender those rights is to surrender our humanity, which doesn’t seem possible. On the other hand perhaps this is exactly what we do when we fail to – as Emerson says – “trust thyself”.

Neither Emerson nor The D. of I. take actual credit – good or bad – for the claims they make.

Both are simply stating what is in fact the way things are. Maybe even the ways things must be? Who knows. The point is – and this might appear counterintuitive – that what makes Emerson’s writings (it’s important to recognize I’m speaking about Emerson’s writings and not Emerson the man) and The Declaration of Independence (here too, I’m refer to the document and not it’s author, Thomas Jefferson) is that I can’t find any Emerson or Jefferson in them, that neither Emerson or Jefferson is saying “Listen to ME. Let ME tell you how to live/govern your life.” Each is – so to speak – putting his own thoughts/ideas aside in order to show us what anyone could have figured out on their own.

Obviously I’ve quoted only one line from the Declaration of Independence, as well as a few lines from Emerson’s works, and that I could be completely wrong. However, I’d be lying if I didn’t say that whenever I’m reading Emerson (or the Declaration of Independence for that matter), there’s something about each that speaks to a part of me that goes beyond reason or logic; it’s as if each recognizes/acknowledges my humanity and then says, “Now go and live the life you were meant to live!”

I did not mean to imply that we have a choice of what our vision will reveal. However, we have to choose whether we will open ourselves to claim this birthright. It is much safer and more convenient to rely on the vision of “authorities” and the “revelation” of history.

On March 26, 1838, a few months before the July Divinity School Address, RWE writes in his journal:

Thought is only to be answered by thought not by authority, not by wishes. I tell men what I find in my consciousness. They answer me, “It is wrong; it is false; for we wish otherwise.” I report to them from my thought how little we know God, and they reply, “We think you have no Father. We love to address the Father.” Yes, I say, the Father is a convenient name and image to the affections; but drop all images if you wish to come at the elements of your thought…

As Redding corrects me, he is not imploring them to see the world as he sees it. But he is calling them to account what you call their “benighted” [another interesting metaphor from the natural world by the way] lazy view. He wants preachers (and everyone) to rely on themselves; in short, to choose to exercise their birthright.

Zeke’s observation that “this mystery appears ironic or paradoxical” sounds right to me, especially if we emphasize the word, “appears.” In these quotations, I see Emerson describing the experience of paradox as an acute awareness of the self/Self division. For instance, people see themselves in the colossal without recognizing themselves because they are still seeing from the vantage point of “self” and not from within the flowing exercise of natural power that we have been calling “Self” (and we could call it “God,” or “Nature” or “the Sublime,” etc.).

Zeke’s closing comment however brings me back to a fundamental point about Emerson, and I’m not sure if this is a substantive difference in our views or simply a semantic quibble. Zeke helpfully points out that Emerson says in “The American Scholar” that this expanded Self is our “birthright,” and then he closes his posting with this further observation, “back to my comment above about our “birthright” to see the world as we choose to see it..”

We cannot choose a birthright, and I don’t think Emerson thinks so either. He repeatedly says that there is a “fatality” in vision, and I think he means that we do not choose our visions, they choose us. With vision, he is a fatalist, not an advocate of free choice. We can choose to leave behind the social constraints that impede vision, but the vision is neither willed nor separable into “individual points of view.”

If we find ourselves making a choice to see the world in a particular way, it is simply another particularity, not a universal vision.

Now, we may express our universal sensibility in ways that seem peculiar and particular to the clouded social perspectives of our benighted neighbors, but we do not have the power as individuals to “see” the world in ways we choose.

I am not sure if Zeke was just using an occasional figure of speech (which means we are simply discussing a trivial semantic difference), or if we have different understandings of Emerson’s proposals.

Flow provides a great list of examples of ways that –in our experiential world– this mystery appears ironic or paradoxical.

The wordplay in flow’s final sentence –itself a comment on the final sentence of his prior post– seems to also reflect very Emersonian point of view. It points back to my comment above about our “birthright” to see the world as we choose to see it.

In response, I offer the following few selections that seem (to me) imbued with various degrees of paradox and irony:

No man can learn what he has not preparation for learning, however near to his eyes is the object.

Not in nature but in man is all the beauty and worth he sees.

As in dreams, so in the scarcely less fluid events of the world, every man sees himself in the colossal, without knowing that it is himself that he sees.

Take the book into your two hands, and read your eyes out; you will never find what I find.

The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken.

He that writes to himself, writes to an eternal public.

The great man knew not that he was great.

All devils respect virtue.

But real action is in the silent moments.

The rich mind lies in the sun and sleeps, and is Nature.

This over-estimate of the possibilities of Paul and Pericles, this under-estimate of our own, comes from a neglect of the fact of an identical nature.

In addition, I would like to revise the final sentence of my prior post to read: “If you see it differently, I acknowledge and respect your perspective and the opinion informed by it.” There is no need for me to “grant” that which you are certainly entitled.

When I say, “I believe much of Emerson’s insight in Spiritual Laws is conditioned by the paradox and irony consistent with the topology of this ‘land’”

I am simply trying to suggest that, as a seer, Emerson’s insight penetrates paradox and irony. That he himself has traversed this “borderland”, and achieved the synthesis: self/Self.

I am also suggesting that for any individual immersed in the internal adventure, sensitivity to the values of paradox and irony can be very instructive, quite fortunate.

When you say, “As I read Emerson, paradox and irony are signs that one is trapped in the petty confusions of everyday life; and the goal is to move past irony to an unmediated blending of self/Self where any border is obliterated altogether”, it suggests to me that only semantics stands between us. If you see it differently, I grant and respect your perspective and the opinion informed by it.

As long as the soul seeks an external God, it can never have peace, it always must be uncertain what may be done & what may become of it. But when it sees the great God far within its own nature, then it sees that always itself is a party to all that can be, that always it will be informed of that which will happen and therefore it is pervaded with a great Peace.

I like that poetry which without aiming to be allegorical, is so. Which sticking close to its subject & that perhaps trrivial can yet be applied to the life of man & the government of God & can be found to hold.

I find this also. Fiction that is only reflective of its time and does not speak to me, is of only passing interest. On the other hand, didactic allegory is annoying. The middle ground is a credible naturalism that transcends borders and years.

For example, Shakespeare. Of whom Emerson wrote:

In Shakespear I actually shade my eyes as I read for the spendor of the thoughts.