So you think you know a person, their collection of attributes, traits hinted at by their actions. But that’s not how they see themselves and that’s not who or what they are. That man or woman or kid sitting next to you is just as immersed in his experience of the world as you are in yours. Knowing this, you attempt to put yourself in his shoes, imagining feeling what he might be feeling or thinking what he might be thinking, but you already know that you have no hope of being accurate enough in your guesses. Your purpose in trying already taints the result. In imagining his immersion, you’re still only experiencing your own.
So he makes a comment on the weather, and you know you’re only responding to his words, not to him. Even when your response takes into consideration whatever you guess to be his experience and motive, you cannot capture the essence of him at that moment, and you cannot respond without ignoring that essence. It is in conversation itself that it becomes apparent how our differences make life possible. It is not assimilation we seek but validation, permanence, acceptance. Togetherness is only possible to the extent that we are separate. No amount of connection will change that fact.
Even in the most perfect, completely fulfilling relationship, your existence is not validated. Your actions, those traits others identify you through–those can be validated. But not you. Life itself can never be justified. It doesn’t need to be. It just is.
You just are.
Great post. This would have gotten more attention in the “Philosophy” forum, where it’s probably best suited anyways.
Existence as a person is lonely, isn’t it? Are you really satisfied by the conclusion of your post? I think we can achieve that validation, that togetherness, that being immersed together.
I am interested in hearing more about this. Could you describe more what you mean?
I wrote that so long ago, I can’t really remember what I was trying to get at.
I think all I meant is that in order to really connect to another person in every way, you would have to, for all intents and purposes, be that person. This isn’t what closeness is. When we talk of closeness, we don’t mean similarity. We mean an acceptance of differences, even if those differences can never be completely known.
Closeness isn’t being certain of what another person is thinking or feeling. That is merely familiarity. And there’s such a thing as being too familiar, too empathetic. Here I’m imagining being so engrossed in what its like to be that other person that you forget to look into your own self to be able to respond. And even then, to be imagining what another person is experiencing, is to still be on the outside, looking in.
It is that effort, and the comfort we have with whatever we think we’ve found. It is being okay with never knowing exactly what another person is experiencing. It is being okay with being two different people experiencing two different things and only parts of each other. That difference, that unknown, that partiality is key.
We can approve of the parts and pretend that we’re approving of the whole person, but we’re not. We can love those parts and pretend that we love the whole person, but we can’t, because we can never know the whole person.
And yes, I am satisfied that I don’t need someone else to love all of me. They love enough. The rest simply is.