I used to think that travelling through a place implied some sort of ownership. It was as if running through a neighborhood, finding my way through city streets or airport terminals, or anticipating where the beans are in Wal-Mart all gave me some legitimate claim on those places. Knowing a thing, I thought, meant owning it in some way.
"Oh yeah, I know Chattanooga. I used to live there."
"Oh yeah, I've flown through Detroit a lot. I love that airport."
"Oh yeah, I'll just run in. I know exactly where the lentils are."
I also used to think that I would just be content for people to see me as I truly am. If only people would see the real me, all would be well. I would have some claim to them and their love. Of course they would love me. I only wanted to be seen justly and assumed that anyone who looked upon me witha critical eye was just seeing injustly. Pooh on them.
These ways of thinking were at odds with one another. Either experiencing or being experienced gave me some special right, some certain rank. MEMEMEME.
Posted by nickles at January 26, 2005 09:30 AMi feel your pain bob. I was just reading Pascal the other day, and he was saying very similar things. Perhaps you too are a 17th century mathematical genius. Anyhow, I enjoy reading both Pascal's and your "Pensees," or however you say it.
Posted by: jose at January 26, 2005 03:17 PMHmmm...just wondering, for clarification--when you say "these ways of thinking were at odds with one another" do you mean only that they were both bad ways of thinking because they both contributed to your own pride and sense of self-importance? Or do you mean they are "at odds with one another" because the first problem, that of assuming one knows or owns something after only superficial experience with it, is precisely what leads to the second problem, that of being known but not loved?
Posted by: angela at January 26, 2005 09:56 PMOk, maybe I'm not being logical, but I don't understand this post. Are you being intentionally enigmatic...trying to protect the guilty? =)
Posted by: jeep at January 27, 2005 05:56 PMBTW, looking at you with a critical eye is not always a bad or mean thing. Some people do it out of love. I hope that's why I do it.
Posted by: jeep at January 27, 2005 05:57 PM(1) Well, jose, I taught myself Calculus. But I don't think I'm very mathematically inclined.
(2) It's like this, Angela. Growing up is a very me-centered process -- everything seems to relate directly either to what I think about everything or what everybody thinks about me. Knowing something meant letting it into my little sheepfold of knowledge. And being seen by someone meant letting them into my little sheepfold of admirers. But you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sometimes knowing means being known in ways that allow other folks to have ownership of me. Sometimes being seen means seeing parts of yourself that are unlovely.
(3) And Jeep, I'm just working out some thoughts. They're still a little tangled -- hence the enigmas. But one thing that has helped has been watching the way you see people. You don't suspend criticism the way some folks do, in order to be polite, but you don't suspend charity, either. Being tall means being noticeable. Which in turn means that you notice the way people see other people. I mean, when people look at you all the time, you begin to tell who sees well and who sees poorly. It has something to do with "motivation" and "things previously seen." Anyway, you see well. And I'm thinking about that, these days.
Hope that sufficiently confused everyone.
Posted by: bob at January 27, 2005 10:45 PM