A Spiritual Reflection on the Characters We Carry

Somewhere along the way, without quite deciding to, we became playwrights.

Not of fiction. Of the people we know.

We took the person — the partner, the colleague, the difficult brother, the aging parent, the friend who disappoints us in the same way every time — and we began to write them. Slowly, from accumulated evidence. Scene by scene, exchange by exchange, over months and years of shared life, until we had assembled something remarkably complete: a full character, with established traits, predictable responses, known weaknesses, recognizable lines.

We know what they will say before they say it. We know how they will react before they react. We know the shape of their resistance, the particular texture of their defensiveness, the way they will eventually come around or the way they definitively will not. We have, without ever using the word for it, become the expert on who they are.

And we carry that character with us into every encounter. Already written. Already cast. Already placed, in our minds, in the scene that is about to unfold.

Evagrius (fourth century theologian) would have recognized this. He mapped a version of it in his teaching on the logismoi — the thought-streams that arise within us and, if unobserved, construct a narrative so familiar that we mistake it for reality. The logismos of anger, for example, does not simply make us irritable. At its more developed stages it creates an entire interpretive framework — a lens through which the person before us is perpetually seen as threatening, inadequate, or in need of correction. We are no longer responding to what they are doing. We are responding to the character that anger, operating invisibly within us, has written for them.

The same is true of sadness, which writes characters that perpetually fail us. Of vainglory, which writes characters as audiences for our own performance. Of pride, which writes everyone as slightly less than ourselves. Each passion has its preferred cast, its recurring narrative, its predetermined ending toward which every scene is quietly being directed.

We do not experience this as bias. We experience it as knowledge.

This is who they are. I know them. I have seen this before. I know how this goes.

And we are often right enough about enough details that the illusion of accurate perception is very convincingly maintained. The character we have written is, after all, based on real observation. It is not fabricated from nothing. The difficulty is more subtle than simple error.

The difficulty is that the character has become fixed. The person before us continues to live and change and surprise — continues to carry, within them, the full unpredictable depth of a human soul that no amount of accumulated observation has yet fully disclosed. But the character we carry has stopped moving. It was written at some point, with the evidence available at that point, and it has remained largely unchanged since. Because changing it would require us to receive something new about this person, and receiving something new requires the willingness to be surprised, and the willingness to be surprised requires the one thing that long familiarity most powerfully resists.

The Pause. Here is what actually happens, in the ordinary exchanges of ordinary life, when the play we have written meets the person who is supposed to be performing it.

We arrive at the encounter already inside the script. Our position is prepared. Our likely response to their likely response is already assembled. We have, in the privacy of our own minds, conducted a version of this conversation before it has begun — and we have arrived, in that private rehearsal, at the conclusion we need. Now we simply require the other person to play their part so we can arrive there together.

They generally do not comply perfectly. People rarely do. There is usually some deviation from the expected lines — a moment of unexpected warmth from someone we had written as cold, a deflection where we anticipated engagement, a silence where we had scripted defensiveness. These deviations are the grace in the encounter. They are the place where the actual person momentarily exceeds the character we have assigned them.

But we rarely notice them as grace. More often we experience them as interference. An anomaly to be explained, or absorbed back into the existing framework, or noted as an exception that does not disturb the general characterization we have established.

Because the script, once written, is remarkably resistant to revision.

Evagrius called the unobserved operation of the passions a form of captivity — not dramatic captivity, not the captivity of obvious sin, but the quiet captivity of a person who has lost the ability to truly see because the thought-stream operating within them has become the lens through which everything is perceived. The logismos of anger does not announce itself as anger. It presents itself as accurate perception. I am not angry. I am simply seeing this person clearly.

This is the deepest form of the dynamic. We are not performing a script. We are perceiving reality. The character we have written is not a character to us — it is the person. And the narrative we have pre-determined is not a narrative — it is simply what is true.

Sacred Noticing addresses this not by telling us we are wrong about the people we think we know — which is both ineffective and often partially untrue — but by interrupting the sequence at its most critical point.

Between the first movement of recognition and the assembled response, there is a gap.

In that gap, if we allow it, something is possible that the script cannot accommodate.

Notice. Something is arising. A familiar pattern in this person, or so it seems. A movement within me that I recognize — the particular quality of readiness that means I already know what this is and what I think of it.

Notice that too. Notice not just what the other person is doing, but what is already assembling inside me in response. The character I am about to address is not only out there. It is also, and perhaps primarily, an interior construction. I am the playwright. And I am about to perform my own scripted role in the scene I have written.

Pause. Not to interrogate this. Not to analyze the origins of the characterization or work through whether it is fair. Simply to stop, for one moment, before the prepared response is delivered.

In that pause, nothing is required. The script is still there. The character is still there. The accumulated history that produced both is still entirely present. The pause does not erase any of it.

It simply creates, within the encounter, one moment of genuine openness. One moment in which the question is not how do I respond to who I know this person to be but something quieter and more honest: who is actually here?

That question — barely a question, more like a brief interior opening — is one of the most radical acts available to a human being in ordinary relational life. It does not require the dismantling of everything we know. It requires only the willingness, for one unrehearsed moment, to not know completely.

Respond. What comes from that open moment is not the scripted response. It is something less defended, less strategic, less aimed at the predetermined conclusion. It may still say something very similar to what the script would have said. But it will carry a different quality — the quality of something that has actually received the person before speaking to them.

That difference is not always visible from the outside. Sometimes it changes nothing practically. But it changes everything in the quality of the encounter itself — for the person who is finally, even briefly, being met rather than managed. And for the one who has finally, even briefly, set down the burden of already knowing.

The characters we carry are not malicious. They are the accumulated effort of a self trying to navigate a complex world with some degree of orientation and efficiency. They are, in their own way, a form of love — the love that pays enough attention to actually learn the shape of another person’s patterns and difficulties and gifts.

The problem is not that we know the people we love. The problem is when knowing hardens into certainty. When the living, changing, perpetually surprising person before us disappears into the fixed character we have constructed in their place. When the play we have written becomes more real to us than the person standing in front of us, waiting — whether they know it or not — to be received rather than performed at.

Evagrius spent his life in the desert learning to see his own interior movements before they became his perception of reality. He called this nepsis — the unhurried watchfulness that notices what is arising before it becomes the lens through which everything is seen.

Sacred Noticing takes that ancient practice and walks it directly into the encounter — into the moment when the character you have written for someone else is about to be confirmed once again, and the space between recognition and response opens, briefly, like a window.

In that space, you do not have to perform your part.

You do not have to deliver the line the script requires.

You can simply pause — and in pausing, receive the extraordinary ordinary gift of the actual person. Who is always, it turns out, more than you wrote them to be. More complex, more fragile, more capable of surprise. More themselves, and therefore more capable of genuine encounter, than the character ever was.

The play we have written is not the scripture of their life.

It is only, and at most, our first draft.

Grace, when we allow it, is always working on a revision.

 

 

 

© Michael J. Cunningham, OFS — spiritualbreak.com.