RADIANCIES OF INDIVIDUALITY
I want to radiate individuality. I want to be myself and none other. If
I see in others things to emulate, things that will more fully make me
what I want and ought to be, then emulation becomes a joyful duty--the
something in another becomes part of myself through my desire, my
emulation, my longing to attain. Hence in the right seeking to be myself
I seek also to be like all the good in others which appeals to me.
Herein is no destruction of my individuality. It is a perfecting of it.
I take what is my own, no matter where or how I find it.
It is so well known as to be trite that men and women are mere sheep. We
follow our leaders. We are anything but individual. In religion, in
medicine, in law, in speech, in dress, in amusements, in architecture,
in literature, in food, in everything, custom and fashion dominate us.
I would radiate a healthy resistance to the dictates of fashion. Why
should fashion ride rough-shod over the wisdom of men and women? The
hoop-skirt, the stove-pipe collar and hat, the camel's hump of fifteen
or twenty years ago that the ladies wore as an extra adornment, the
chignon, and a thousand and one other foolish things that once
domineeringly dared us to defy them have disappeared. Why should we ever
have yielded to them? What is fashion, anyhow? She is a fickle damsel,
generally proud of her money, whose good looks are often the result of
powder and paint and chalk and rouge instead of good health, vigor, and
love. She is a mere flirt, carried away for a few hours with anything as
a whim to pass away the time; without heart, feeling, sensibility,
brain, or knowledge. Her fads are more likely to be wrong than right,
and when right are generally the result of a lapse into sensibility by
relinquishing any pretense at thought into the hands of some one who can
think for her. Fashion, a heartless, conscienceless, soulless jade whose
friendship and favor are a curse, whose flatteries are hollow,
insincere, and corrupting, and whose only use for any one or anything
lasts merely so long as her own selfish pleasures are attained or desire
for novelty satisfied.
Why let fashion dictate what we shall wear? Radiate your distrust of its
judgment. Radiate your refusal to submit to its dictates. Radiate your
full and calm determination, without argument, to live in your own way.
If a certain "style" of dress, which is structural, honest, neat, is
suited to you to-day, it is suited to you to-morrow and for all time. Be
yourself and _wear that style_ regardless of the fluctuations of
fashion. Why should fashion say that a man's overcoat this year shall
fit him tightly and keep him warm, and next year fit him loosely and
send him into the cold, through a storm, shivering and chilled? What
sense, what manliness, what dignity, is there in allowing a
"fashion-designer" to thus have the opportunity of ruining our health?
Let us radiate our positive repudiation of such insane follies, of such
sins against our bodies, and in our dress, our food, our social customs,
be ourselves in a kindly, unselfish, unobtrusive manner.
Wherever fashion dictates in matters of dress, of personal custom, there
you find at once a restricted and "provincial" people. For fashion
compels adherence to her silly commands, hence picturesque individuality
disappears. A few years ago the clever editor of the New York _Journal_
wrote an editorial against men's wearing whiskers. One part of his
argument was that the hairs were carriers of disease-germs, and that,
therefore, a man with whiskers was dangerous and to be shunned.
Thousands of the poor people of New York read and believed this man's
preposterous screed, and were thus made unhappy and miserable, and by
mental suggestion rendered more liable to the attacks of disease than
they would have been had these foolish words never been penned.
It was fashion--not a care for health--that dictated those words. We
Americans so love the intellectual conversation and edifying monologues
of our barbers that we allow them to dictate to us whether we shall have
hair on our cheeks or not, whether we shall have our necks shaved, and
how much and whose "restorer" we shall put upon our hair.
I use the barber here merely as a type. He by no means stands alone.
I am determined to radiate a quiet but forceful protest against having
my life or that of my fellows dictated to, in purely personal matters,
by any one, whether he be priest, doctor, lawyer, barber, or editor. Let
each live his own life, within reasonable bounds, and let each _expect_
every other to be himself. In nature there are no two things alike, yet
fashion would have us _all alike_; and, it might be added, therefore,
all foolish.
In seeking for the expression of yourself do not for one moment think it
is necessary for you to think out something new, original, startling, or
strange. That is not the idea at all. Your life may be _yours_--purely
individualistic, and yet everything you do and say and think and feel be
as old as the hills. The idea is this. No matter where you get the
thoughts from that incite you to action, _make them your own_; _let
them become a part of yourself_, then your life will be yours indeed; an
expression of your own soul, and not that imitation of another that
Emerson so truthfully says is suicide.
But in the radiating of my own individuality I must be so filled with
the true spirit of individuality that I shall in no way interfere with
that of others. Too often men and women in seeking to be "individual"
have seriously trespassed upon the rights, the joys, the comforts of
others. This is a fundamental error. The first law of individualism is
this: "What I claim for myself I _thereby freely accord_ to all others."
Note the word "thereby." In the very fact and act of claiming I
_thereby_ freely recognize _to the utmost_ the right of every one else
to claim the same right. There is no selfishness in individualism; there
are no "special" privileges in its exercise. It is the habit of a few to
believe that _they_ should have "special" privileges accorded them. True
individualism recognizes no such special rights. In _taking_ we _give_.
In claiming we avow the right of others to claim.
The trouble with mankind is that it has not learned that souls are
individuals; that the diversities seen between plants, the differences
that exist even between blades of grass, so that there are no two blades
exactly alike, is but indicative of the individualism of the human
soul. There is a family likeness, for we are all created in God's image,
but God is so large, so great, so diverse, in Himself, that each soul is
a different image. Hence each soul must be itself and not another. Each
soul must develop in its own lines and not in those of others.
The great errors have come in when men have said: "I have found the way
of life; it is the only way; all men, therefore, must walk herein." It
is a very human error, yet error it certainly is. That Roman Catholicism
is "the way" for many human souls no one can question, but that it is
"the only way for all human souls" many millions have questioned and
doubtless for ever will question. Every church, every creed, every
philosophy has those for whom it is "the way," for the time being at
least, and it is well that they walk therein. But in thought religion,
as in everything else, progress is the law of life, not standing still.
In religious thought, as in all life, let us say with our whole souls:
So welcome each rebuff
That turns earth's smoothness rough,
Each sting that bids not sit, nor stand, but go.
Onward, forward, is the cry. The law of evolution has demonstrated that
there must ever be the disturbance of the equilibrium on the lower plane
in order that there may be the readjustment upon the higher. Every soul
that sits still and rests content is retrogressing. There must ever be a
godly discontent--a reaching out, a following after, as Paul puts it, if
that we may apprehend--take hold of--the things for which Christ Jesus
has taken hold of us.
Every soul-field must be plowed and harrowed after each harvest. Crops
do not volunteer very often, and a volunteer crop is never so good as
one that is carefully prepared for; ground thoroughly nourished, plowed,
drained, harrowed, rolled, seeded with the best of seed, watered,
weeded, and properly harvested. Is a soul's harvest to be left to
chance, while farmers take anxious thought for field-harvests, where
only a few dollars' worth of produce are the outcome? Let us be wise for
our own souls.
I can only radiate individuality when I am individualistic.
Is there no infallible, certain, sure way of doing things? Of learning
things?
I know not what others have found, I only know for myself _that there is
but one way, and that is the way of personal test and experience_.
Cardinal Newman, one of the greatest, simplest, purest, and sweetest
minds of the last century, had to put his life's guidance into the hands
of the church--the Mother Church, to him--the Roman Catholic Church. His
piteous cry has voiced the cry of millions of human souls since; souls
groping in the dark, seeking for light, desiring above all to _know_.
Lead, kindly light, amid th' encircling gloom,
Lead Thou me on;
The night is dark, and I am far from home,
Lead Thou me on.
Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.
It was his desire to know that led him to write the hymn.
What a profound truth Emerson said when he wrote: "A man should learn to
detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from
within, more than the luster of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he
dismisses without notice his thought, _because it is his_."
The italics are mine. Why will men rely more upon written words than
upon the flashes of illuminated truth that come to their own souls? God
and His truth are as much for me as for any man. There is as much truth,
wisdom, knowledge in the universe for me as for all the wise and learned
of all the ages. It is outside of me, waiting to come in, anxious to
come in if I will allow it to do so, and yet I allow a Board of Bishops,
a College of Medicine, a Bench of Judges to dictate to me as to what of
God and His truth I shall receive. While it is my duty and privilege to
study reverently all which these people would present to me as the
truth, I want to radiate with all the power of my nature my belief that
every soul must find truth for itself. There is no patent truth
extractor that suits every human need. Conventional thought which
professes to express "the truth" is merely man's sign-board to point out
to you the way some one else has found truth. Too often, alas, it is
used as a restricting bond to tell you beyond which bounds you must not
go. Let no man bind you. God is over all and in all. His truth is
everywhere. _Seek in spirit and in truth_ and you will find,--_for
yourself_. But be careful, when you have found for yourself, that you do
not make the common mistake of most human beings, and endeavor to force
your truth, appropriate and suitable for you, down the mental and
spiritual throats of every one else as the appropriate and suitable
truth for them. Leave to every other soul the right, the privilege, the
joy, the necessity of finding truth for himself, herself. Tell what you
have found, if you like, but tell it reverently, as a gift to you, not
as a divine light for every one else.
This, therefore, is the individuality I would radiate. I would have the
Hindoo, the Hottentot, the Hopi, the Roman Catholic, the Mormon, the
Chinaman, the Methodist all feel that I revere and respect their
individuality even as I revere and respect my own. But, further--and
here is the important thing--I would so radiate that they will respect
and revere mine as I respect theirs. When the Methodist says either in
words or acts, "I am a Methodist and therefore you should be one," he
violates the law of individuality as of moral freedom. So with the Hopi,
the Catholic, the Hindoo.
I would have it clear, therefore, that individualism is not
"toleration." What is there in my exercise of a God-given right and duty
to be myself that should call for the assumption of my fellow being that
HE will "tolerate" these rights? Therefore, I do not want to be
"tolerant" to my fellows. I would radiate the individualism which goes
ahead and thinks and acts according to the dictates of personal
conscience. It is all very well to say that we should learn from the
combined wisdom of the ages. I am not so sure of much of it, after all!
I accept the astronomy of to-day, but by no means believe our
astronomers have said the last word, any more than I believe that the
great and humble Newton said the last word when he declared that man had
gained the summit in the art of telescope making. Just four years after
he made that foolish assertion John Dolland invented the achromatic
telescope which has revolutionized the astronomical science of the world
by adding infinitely to the astronomer's seeing power.
_Nothing_ in human life is yet complete. There is _no_ absolute truth
carried out to its ultimate. When numbers were first discovered our
forefathers thought they had gone as far as it was possible, in
discovering that two and two make four. Then geometry was discovered and
Euclid changed the arithmetic of the world, and the teachers said we had
gone as far as it was possible. Then algebra was discovered and the
world found out the teachers were wrong in limiting the science of
arithmetic. Yet foolish people would not learn from the folly of the
past. They wisely and sagely declared that _now, at last_, the ultimate
had been reached. But Newton comes along and with his "Calculus" opens
up new worlds in arithmetical science. NOW we have got it all, declares
the teacher of _fixed_ truth. Yet in the year of Our Lord, one thousand
nineteen hundred and six, there comes a Japanese, and in his _Handbook
of Chess_ demonstrates as great an advance in arithmetical science as
Newton did in his Calculus. We are yet children. We shall ever be
learning so long as we are human. The knowledge we have so far gained is
vast, apparently, when compared with the knowledge held in the Dark
Ages, but, as compared _with what there is yet stored away for us to
know_, I verily believe it is so insignificant, so slight, so small, so
puny, so infinitesimal, as to excite the pity and the contempt of any
superior beings who look down upon us and see us strutting in our
doctor's mortar-boards and gowns in our assumed wisdom.
God forbid that any arrogant pretension of mine should ever prevent one
truth from entering a human soul. I want to radiate my acceptance of all
there is, but my expectance for the large _more_ that is yet to come.