DO I KNOW YOU?
I’ve wondered this for awhile. If you know what I’m talking about and have any ideas of how to put the question, that’d be swell… It has to do with relating to people. What’s the difference between conversations. (Note: This isn’t commenting on definitions of deep, philosophical or theological.) I notice people can have “deep philosophical and theological conversations” but get away not knowing a lot about the other person besides a few of their opinions or books they’ve read that have impacted them. And you can really get to know a person by talking to them a lot; um....whatever. I got lost I think.
So where does the differentiation take place? Maybe it’s between the emotional and the rational level. (There remains an undefined spiritual level – where kindred spirits take place.) A perfect balance is…well…perfect. But one is appropriate for one situation, and one for the other. Some in the classroom, some for in the dark late at night. But how, besides intuitively, and not all of us have natural social graces to know this, is it permissible (or does it just happen, only not very often?) to talk beyond the headiness? When does bringing my personal self into the classroom or Bible study or table-side conversation benefit, and when … will they look at me and grimace, “information overload, didn’t need to know that”?? I am in situations sometimes and I think about this; usually I say it anyway and trailer the sentence with “but you don’t have to answer if I’m being too nosey(I don’t use that word but I don’t remember which one).”
Ah reason, you really are a bitch goddess. (Martin Luther said she was, I wouldn’t just cuss.)
Maybe my hypothesis about deep = real isn’t quite as rectified as I thought? Just continuing that rabbit trail.
I think too much, eh?
Something else – apparently the female race is more intuitive, magically reaching a conclusion that’s right, but doing it in the subconscious so having to retrace to figure out the steps. Males generally are able to analyze their way there – we both can get to the same place in the end. Knowing this affects my life b/c it makes me not feel quite as intellectually incompetent for being the way I am in comparison to … well… all those guys I’m around.
Also am wondering if you can be (wise) and know it, etc. – on a universal level – how much do you not know that you are, that you dare not find out about yourself? Speaking of which, as a writer (Creative writing class) I get the impression you’re supposed to dig deep into your past, yourself, your dirt – it’ll make something real, be painful, but better your writing. But I was thinking. It would be treacherous to go into my past on my own – chhhhh (pronounce that like it’s in German, but breathe inwardly) who knows what fascinating artifacts I’d dig up. Or stinky rusty prickly ones. But the “good” things I’d unearth about myself would be equally perilous: the conscious knowledge would kill them.
There. Now I’ve figured out the background for my “original intuitive statement” I made the other day - that what someone says about themselves (i.e. I’m , it is possible this isn’t a good representation of who they really are.
If there is a really. Maybe it’s all subjective/relative.
Excavation, anyone?
Finally, then I’ll quit…C.S. Lewis has somewhere (he really should be marked up into books, chapters, and verses like the Bible) the idea that it’s quite useful to learning to have the body be comfortable. This (fully?) justifies Wheaton having beautiful grounds, easy living, clean fast access to internet and laundry,
What if we have complete ease and health emotionally?
a) we might all have 4.0 GPAs
b) a lot more time and energy for dance parties and pranks
c) or none of us would really need and experience Christ at all the same way. I guess there’s no way around suffering. Maybe it’s a beautiful thing after all? (Is that a cheesy way to end? Sorry.)
So where does the differentiation take place? Maybe it’s between the emotional and the rational level. (There remains an undefined spiritual level – where kindred spirits take place.) A perfect balance is…well…perfect. But one is appropriate for one situation, and one for the other. Some in the classroom, some for in the dark late at night. But how, besides intuitively, and not all of us have natural social graces to know this, is it permissible (or does it just happen, only not very often?) to talk beyond the headiness? When does bringing my personal self into the classroom or Bible study or table-side conversation benefit, and when … will they look at me and grimace, “information overload, didn’t need to know that”?? I am in situations sometimes and I think about this; usually I say it anyway and trailer the sentence with “but you don’t have to answer if I’m being too nosey(I don’t use that word but I don’t remember which one).”
Ah reason, you really are a bitch goddess. (Martin Luther said she was, I wouldn’t just cuss.)
Maybe my hypothesis about deep = real isn’t quite as rectified as I thought? Just continuing that rabbit trail.
I think too much, eh?
Something else – apparently the female race is more intuitive, magically reaching a conclusion that’s right, but doing it in the subconscious so having to retrace to figure out the steps. Males generally are able to analyze their way there – we both can get to the same place in the end. Knowing this affects my life b/c it makes me not feel quite as intellectually incompetent for being the way I am in comparison to … well… all those guys I’m around.
Also am wondering if you can be (wise) and know it, etc. – on a universal level – how much do you not know that you are, that you dare not find out about yourself? Speaking of which, as a writer (Creative writing class) I get the impression you’re supposed to dig deep into your past, yourself, your dirt – it’ll make something real, be painful, but better your writing. But I was thinking. It would be treacherous to go into my past on my own – chhhhh (pronounce that like it’s in German, but breathe inwardly) who knows what fascinating artifacts I’d dig up. Or stinky rusty prickly ones. But the “good” things I’d unearth about myself would be equally perilous: the conscious knowledge would kill them.
There. Now I’ve figured out the background for my “original intuitive statement” I made the other day - that what someone says about themselves (i.e. I’m , it is possible this isn’t a good representation of who they really are.
If there is a really. Maybe it’s all subjective/relative.
Excavation, anyone?
Finally, then I’ll quit…C.S. Lewis has somewhere (he really should be marked up into books, chapters, and verses like the Bible) the idea that it’s quite useful to learning to have the body be comfortable. This (fully?) justifies Wheaton having beautiful grounds, easy living, clean fast access to internet and laundry,
What if we have complete ease and health emotionally?
a) we might all have 4.0 GPAs
b) a lot more time and energy for dance parties and pranks
c) or none of us would really need and experience Christ at all the same way. I guess there’s no way around suffering. Maybe it’s a beautiful thing after all? (Is that a cheesy way to end? Sorry.)
posted by Anna's Abstract at 7:49 PM
2 Comments:
We can manufacture no environment in which an individual will experience complete ease and emotional health. Suffering is integral to the human experience by God's design. you are right it really is a beautiful thing. It is the means by which the lord can reveal his nature in a "real" way. In my limited experience, knowledge of spiritual truth (as differentiated from belief of spiritual truth) is reenforced in suffering. At a theological level, suffering in the human experience can create a wonderful context for Christ's gift on the cross.
...Relationships are a whole different mater. I used to believe that deep conversations were the pinnacle of friendship, and that a good friendship could be built exclusively through this kind of interaction. However, it would appear that relationships are much more complex. Looking back, I realize that all my good friendships have been built on a foundation of trust and love (not gooey feely television love, but biblical action based love). That foundation can be established in a number of ways. Certainly soul bearing and the sharing of ideas play no small role, but something must take place before that. Jumping the gun in a friendship in order to get to the deep part first has been the premature end of may a budding friendship. basically... I'm thinking with my fingers. I don't actually know anything. Oh well. have a good day.
Anna,
I definitely agree that 'deep' doesn't equal 'real'. Deep conversations bring you into a wider scope of conversation and thought. But not necessarily about each other. In fact, usually not about each other. I have found that real relationships and true friendships can be developed with those who are almost completely incapable of 'deep' conversation and thought. But that's ok.
However, something else I've discovered is that if in friendships/relationships you aim to seek a deeper or more real connection by understanding more, then it often falls on its head due to a feeling of something lacking or a disappointment in the current results. Better, is to provide what is real to the friendship/relationship and wait for the response. This act of vulnerability and trust is most certainly a risk, but it is worth it, and it works. When I first tried this approach of opening up to people, I maybe got only a 1 in 10 positive result, where the other 9 rejected my openness, or seemed uninterested or uncomfortable. but I found that that 1 person would be a close friend for life.
It's definitely worth it.
but the more experienced you are in doing this, the better/easier/more succesful it becomes.
Sometimes you just have to take risks.
Post a Comment
<< Home