self actualization

"what changes everything is that in bad faith it is from myself that i am concealing the truth." being and nothingness p.90__________________"consider the cafe waiter. his movements are animated and intent, a bit too precise, a bit too quick, he approaches customers with a bit too much animation, he leans forward a bit too attentively, his voice and his eyes expressing an interest in the customer's order that is a bit too solicitous.finaly, here he is, on his way back, and attenpting in his attitued to imitate the inflexible exactitude of some sort of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness characteristic of a tightrope walker, holding it in a constantly unstable and constantly disrupted equilibrium which he constantly restores with a light movement of his arm and his hand. his behavior strikes us as an act...one does not need to watch him for long to realize he is playing at being a cafe waiter." being and nothingness pp 103-4________________if the waiter was playing at being a waiter, paulie sartre was playing at being a philosopher, and playing at one with little understanding of what the waiter was up to...paulie maintains that," the cafe waiter plays with his condition in order to actualize it. this obligation is imposed on all shopkeepers. their condition is entirely ceremonial and the public demands them to actualize it as a ceremony."...so paulie says they are playing a role conferred on them by social sanction and lying to themselves about what it is they are actually doing...bad faith...the attentiveness of the waiter ( "a bit too solicitous" ) and his adeptness at carrying his tray ( i notice paulie did not mention any spills resulting from tray disequilibrium which the waiter "constantly restores"...perhaps skill is a part of the act )...so sartre, seemingly, in this string of subjective judgements about the waiter's actions and interior life doesn't stop to think that, perhaps, being a waiter isn't "play", but an act of sustenance whose proceeds may be a vehicle to an expression of who the waiter truly is...say a gardener or a writer...we all need to earn a living to subsist and we all need to be who we are...after all spinoza was a lens grinder who philosophized in his off-duty hours...and what about paulie? after he abandoned teaching he convenently made his living writing and philosophizing with his armchair "turned towards history"...so was he "playing" at the social ceremonies conferred on thinkers and philosphers while denying his true self in bad faith and using corydran to keep the words flowing? "caught in his own celebrity, playing a double role, civil and obliging in public, harassed and disillusioned in private, far from adhereing to the impeccable facade he offered to the eyes of the world he was in greater and greater need of turning in upon himself..."[sartre. cohen-solal p.404] who was palying their part more assiduously...paulie or the waiter?