The absconditus needs to be understood in

The concern here is to investigate the existential crisis within
the characters and their search for a stable identity. On the other hand, the homo
absconditus needs to be understood in a broader, ontological sense. Quite
apart from specific environmental determinants that lead to a fractured sense
of identity, the human self is by definition ‘a deep, unfathomable mystery to
itself’. Hence the unease with substance metaphysics and any definitions of the
self-resting on static ontological categories is collaterally explained.
Instead, as he repeatedly stresses, the teleological character of human existence is the
arena where self-creation is ‘a project to be lived out’, where ‘being
human means becoming human in this process’. Not in the sense of
simple human self-assertion, one should quickly add, but as the manifestation
of a pneumatologically informed
teleology. It is the Spirit, after all, which shapes the’directional character
of the human being’ toward the realization of the true imago Dei as
reflective of the cosmic reign of Christ. We attempt, convincingly, to navigate
the fragmentation/integration dialectic in an attempt to avoid the twin dangers of pathology and
totality. After all, for all the penultimate character of human existence, the
human self-need not be a hopeless victim of encroaching hyper-reality and the
grasp of total simulacra; it is never to be seen as completely ‘flotsam, driven
by the surface currents of the power-interest and language-worlds of society’. It is, after all, a promissory self-situated
within teleology of peaceable epektasis, with hints of regathering of self-fragments
already at work in the form of pneumatologically driven Gestalt formations and
reconfigurations. In turn, this broader field of intellectual commitments
enables us to provide an account of transformative self-regathering resting on
a variegated interplay of theologically defined ‘evental sites’ and innovatory
‘ruptures’. Assuming that the account of such  anthropology is indeed a correct one, the
abovementioned  proposal could be seen as an alternative to
the borderline pathological in Baudrillard’s account of hyper-reality and its
totalized disintegration of human selfhood; an account that radically
delegitimizes any discourse of restorative anamnesis and transformative
restitution. Baudrillard’s narration
of our current cultural condition as a series of multi-layered chimeras; we
recall, significantly forestalls the possibility of eruption and multidimensional
conversion. Such a deadening contend, needs to be questioned, not simply
because one might find Baudrillard’s austere vision of humanity unsavory,
aesthetically speaking – deplorable in the sense that it strips us of any
meaningful apparatus to check the tempest of radical evil – but also because it
is, well, simply wrong. Not in the sense that the lure of simulacrum is not ‘real’
or pun intended, or that hyper-reality is an entirely falsified notion; these
things, I believe, do pose a serious challenge to the legitimacy of self-regathering.
It is more that the potential of revolutionary newness – one that is contoured
and defined, not open and indeterminate as in Benjamin – can never be permanently submerged by the stultifying
sameness of the illusionary real. The novel’s ‘weak’ self is nested within a
non-totalitarian or ‘weak’ logic of integration where the ‘redemption’ of
fragments is not simply a euphemism for repressive univocity. The cruciform character of such a ‘weak’
metaphysics in turn underwrites the discourse of the transformative self that
allocates an appropriate space for self-transcendence. Its teleological
character –I am using that specific predication with some hesitation and a
great deal of qualification – provides the added dimension of initiating ‘a
process of transformation ‘from ahead’ which loosens and eventually breaks the
ties which bind the self to its pre-given situatedness. The goal of promise now
becomes a transformation from the failed or distorted ‘image’ of humanness into
the ‘image’ of Jesus Christ’. In sum, we offers a view of the self that is somewhat reminiscent
of Tillichian antinomies; one marked by the dialectic of fragility and
resiliency, determination and freedom, brokenness and renewal, sin and grace.
It is this dialectical reality of self-identity that accounts for an
integration that is fluctuating, and polymorphic – in other words ‘weak’ –
while at the same time bursting forth with ‘hints’ of regathering situated
within the unfolding of God’s Trinitarian history. The teleological provisionally
operative in his thought accounts for a meta-discourse of ‘thin’ regathering that eschews, I believe, both
the traps of totalitarian teleology – a discourse that surreptitiously squashes
the possibility of self-difference – and the rootlessness of the ludic
or indeterminate self. Moreover, Self-reflection is a form of showing
fragmentation of the identities and shattered self. Auster intentionally
reflected himself in the role of his novel’s characters. All three have
symbolic and illusionary characteristics. In the first view, we have
allegorical stories pointed out of Quinn’s point of view, narrating them. Not
only it has borrowed texts from others but also it has inter-textually within
the all three, namely as city of glass, ghosts, and the locked
room. In fact, they have a mysterious connection with each other. In the
last one, in the end, we see totally Auster skillfully has used the same names
from the first one, so challenging for the audiences and readers of the novel.