Being Known, Then Loved; Time, Space and Gravity February 14, 2006Posted by Yvonne in beginner blogger, Distinctions.
I’ve had it the other way … I think. I’ve been loved – can I say that? – but didn’t feel known. Loved without being known was a bummer, empty, felt counterfeit.
So since then, I go for being known, then loved – in that order.
Aussie Neo says maybe there’s no way we’ll ever ‘know’ each other. Maybe we just ‘know better’ each other … which has now got me thinking again, a good thing – I think.
know: 1. to perceive directly with the senses or mind; apprehend with clarity and certainty; 2. to be certain of; regard or accept as true beyond doubt; 3. To be capable of; have the skill to; 4. to have a practical understanding of or thorough experience with; 5. to be subjected to; to experience; 6. to have firmly secured in the mind or memory; 7. to be able to distinguish; recognize; 8. to be acquainted or familiar with.
Okay, I’m game for the inquiry. Here are my first volleys:
1. Can a person be known?
- no endpoint – I’ve known Dad all my life and I’m completely sure there’s more to discover about him. Nope, I’ll never “know” Dad. Plus he’s all wiggly – he keeps shifting and growing and being a human being, a verb.
- can’t touch that – What exactly is a person? If a person is a verb, not a noun, not an object – then I can see the effects of the phenomena they are in the environment, but only that. Like the wind. The movement of the trees is not the wind. The blog is not the person. What is even ‘solid’ or ‘continuous’ about a person? Their faces change as they age, but you can still recognize them years later even though none of the atoms their body which you knew as them long ago are anywhere nearby that body you call them now.
2. What does it take to “know” someone?
- Time? Nope. I’m clear I’ve had experiences of being known in no time.
- Space? Nope, again. Does it really matter that you are over there and I am over here? Not lately.
- Language? Nope, completely. You shoulda seen Judi with her camera and that busload of skinny children all smiles in New Delhi.
- Resonance. That’s good – a mutual vibratory harmonic. Need to find out more about that. Maybe that’s it: the willingness to “vibrate with someone” …
Sidebar: okay so if my clue that I know someone is my experience that I’m resonating – ain’t I really knowing myself? The me that is like them? Whoa – house of mirrors time!
2. What does it take to love someone? (Or is it my experience of my vibratory version of them?)
- Time? For me it’s definitely better when there’s time. Although I love people with whom I don’t spend much time.
- Space? Again for me that’s another …
Wait, this is stupid … bottom line: I love, no matter what. It doesn’t take time or space. And even if I hate ’em, I can love ’em. Isn’t that weird?
And that’s distinct from who I choose to be in relationship with —
No, that’s stupid too. Because I do sometimes experience being related to everyone and everything. To me, like gravity, love and relatedness work in all dimensions, between all ‘objects’ no matter the distance. The pull may be miniscule, but it’s there, I trust.
Hmm: Maybe there are no boundaries to a person. (Note: gotta look that up.)
Okay, this is such a quick disorganized response/dump that it’s getting all balled up … and I’ve got a train to catch. But that’s what Aussie Neo gets for poking me in the ribs so effectively …
So, just know that you’re only getting this now in this kind of un-civilized shape because I did actually learn a lesson this first blogmonth … again: Don’t Wait. I know that if I don’t sit and write it now, it’ll morph, change, want to be held in abeyance till it’s more perfect and then will never be born. So I’ve thrown myself (what’s that?) out there, and there you have it.
With a smile … more later …
Future Potential Inquiries: Definition of a Person, What’s the difference between Knowing and Loving?