Witting unwit

Even in the realm of people watching, I have found that there are as many ways to analyze the extent and content of human interaction as there are to read the Cantos of Ezra Pound (if you haven’t read this, give it a shot, though I warn you, it’s quite the trip).  The other day I decided to change the way I look at third party interaction and, just like realizing what the Wall actually meant or figuring out why crack dealers still live with their mothers (it stands to reason that they might be able to better, but no, no, no).

Anyway, the new lens through which I focused discourse was in terms of power.  Mind you, when I started I used a very broad form of power, that being the control that one person or idea exerts over another.  To clarify:  most of us can look at a couple, or conversation, or even our own thoughts, and see who (or which, qua our minds) carries the most force (power, hand, clout, say it as you will).  Some would call this the interplay of dominion and submission, extravert and introvert, but whatever we use; the overwhelming idea is one of precedence.

Now with precedence I have to admit subjugation (natural antonyms), and to watch these concepts in action I couldn’t help but notice an interesting phenomenon.  In all of the interactions that involved these polar ideas, I couldn’t shake the underlying notion of choice that wove its ubiquitous hands throughout the very fabric of the interaction.  All narration aside, even the most one sided interactions had an unforeseen element of intentionality.

By that I mean that the people involved in my armchair psychology were always (if unconsciously) trying to cement the place that each actor thought he/she should have.  Said another way, whether we mean to or not, in all of our interactions we attempt to prove who we think we are, rather than what we could be.

Now I know, enough on the personal responsibility thing.  But the more I see the more I believe that our lot is life is one that we choose.  Perhaps we were not held as children, perhaps we were.  Perhaps being held meant grappling with drunken family, perhaps it meant a loving embrace.  There’s a chance we were told that we would amount to nothing.  There’s an even greater chance we were told we could be anything.  But did we believe it?  Did we see our childhood affection (or lack thereof) as a sign that we were worthy (or worthless, as the case may be.

At basic, I have to say that we are in charge of not only how we perceive ourselves, and nothing more.  We have no control how others perceive us, at least not insofar as objectively changing the perceptions of others:  the only change in how we are seen is through the manifestation of how we see ourselves.  Thus if we decide to know for  ourselves that others are better than ourselves, they will be; if we believe ourselves we deserve a kind, smart, attractive unique mate with an esoteric yet undeniably appealing character we will find one.

I mean, try this one on…can something other than what we believe actually be the case?  Don’t take this one lightly; really think about what holds real weight in your ontology (things that we propose exist).  Think of the major successes our lives (we all have at least a couple, no crap from the dramatic folks):  it was from an unwavering belief in the veracity of our actions which kept us from succumbing (sadly, it only takes a little faith in failure to make that the case, but that’s a whole other can of worms).  But in the end, we did it yea?  And we wanted to take a megaphone to the nearest rooftop and let all those who thought we couldn’t do it know that their lack of faith where they could shove those ideas.

But I believe I digress.  The pith of all this is the idea that we are and only can be what we believe we are and what we will be.  Thus our lot in life is no one’s fault but our own.  Just look very carefully at the thoughts you think and how those thoughts which you believe so easily and constantly reinforce themselves though conversation and general interaction.  And for those who are confused as to why they aren’t where they though they would be I would say only that it isn’t because you are failure, but because you fail to realize that there are a million different ways to achieve the same goal:  perhaps it isn’t you, just the paradigm you are currently running on.  I would argue that so long as you live as you would like to live (you, just you, be selfish for a minute) you will succeed in the way that you want to.  If you could lead a proactive life, how would you run things?  Would you like to render the latent disparity of power and its resulting influence all together?  It isn’t a pipe dream, it’s just been forgotten amidst the sound bites and self help seminars.  Stay well, and good night.