jump to navigation

Being Known, Then Loved; Time, Space and Gravity February 14, 2006

Posted by Yvonne in beginner blogger, Distinctions.
trackback

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?

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Neo Aplin - February 15, 2006

[Laughs] What a wonderful post!
I know what you mean – I always feel ‘closer’ to a person who I feel ‘knows’ me; who connects better with me. For me, this is especially important in romantic love.

…but now you’ve got me thinking…
Maybe we can’t define a person because there is no ‘person’ to speak of – we’re all interrelated.
Isn’t what I define as ‘you’ actually my judgements and/or interpretations of my experiences relating to the combined history of our contacts? Wouldn’t these interractions have to be be objectively ascertained if there truly is a ‘me’ totally distinct from ‘you’? Is objective observance possible?
Can we also extend the Quantum philosophy paradigm where the act of viewing something inherently affects and changes the behaviour of the viewed thing, and that an expectation of an outcome will create the desired outcome – so again, we’re interrelated?

I have no idea…

2. Yvonne - February 23, 2006

Before observance, we’d have to locate the thing. Where is that darn person? Where do we keep the “interaction” to be remembered, studied or observed?

And yes, I’m having a locationality problem too. Sometimes I just can’t find myself or even some very important aspects of life. Damn.

If I locate myself here – in this body/house/city/nation, on this side of the conversation – it gives only a certain constrained possibility and sets other things somewhere else (where is there, anyway?) and in a way that I can’t possibly see – just because I’m standing some where and looking in some direction.

Sometimes such a locationality even gives me my lines to speak, like a role in a play. If I’m standing here in the position of parent, I probalby sound like parent. If I’m standing here in the position of expert or victim or authority or inquirer … well, then I’d probably sound like all of that.

You might call it “positionality” – as in when taking a “place”. Positionality does have some definiteness to it.

Now it gets interesting – how big is a You? I mean actually – not one’s body, not one’s varoius parts added up to a whole. Can a person actually be measured, and therefore located?

Then I’m wondering what are the various locations I can be in?
– Here? There? No Where? Some other Where?
– Over/Under/Behind/Before/Around? Pick any preposition …
– Am I with, against, for, and, but …?

So maybe, Neo, you’ve located the best place to be: not knowing. Beginner’s Mind. Is there a place from which you could see all and have no shadow? Above? Within? Is that not the possibility of looking in all directions at once?

Thank you for continuing the conversation …

3. Jonnie Cowen - February 24, 2006

The most delightful banter I have seen.
I “hear” you in my head saying these things you say and am tickled and intrigued.
This is definitely a thing to behold, enjoy, chew…
I will be back…maybe I haven’t left

4. Yvonne - March 2, 2006

So today some other friends and I were looking: where is the darn “person”? And we got to “mystery”. One said: its the thing we can’t talk about and if we talk about it, it’s destroyed in the talking.

Somehow the you you really are defies speaking, or description or containment or … all of that.

Now I want to look up “mystery” …and follow that line of bread crumbs …

And if who a person is isn’t talk-about-able, then how is it that we recognize one another? How is it possible to know something/one that can’t be spoken of? Where/how is it known if not in language? What is the instrument we use to know someone?

And why is it that my life is a fount of so many, many questions? Makes me laugh …


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: