a reflection

I am a reflection of everyone around me. And I am a part of the mirror off which everyone I know reflects. The primary way in which we discover who we are is to experiment with how our actions reflect off others. So when your friend is doing poorly, that is partially a reflection of you. And when you are going crazy, that is partially that you are reflecting the crazy world around you. So I must take [partial] responsibility for everyone around me, and they…me. I can take [partial] credit for everyone I know who succeeds, and for everyone I know who loses, I must accept [partial] responsibility for the failure.

a reflection

So much it seems

the important point is not what you’re saying, but whether you’re in the conversation. When we disagree, at least there is a we. Like all press being good press, the essential quantity is not what happens in the room but whether or not you’re in the room. Life is pinball, the beginning and the end of the game is always the same, but it’s still fun to play. What happens during a round of pinball? Who can say? But it’s still easily quantifiable as pinball. So are you arguing? Are you lovemaking? Are you interviewing? All of that matters nothing…but are you talking at all? That matters. Is the relationship going well? That matters nothing. Is there a relationship at all? That matters. When it’s going bad at least it’s going. When you let it fall through the gates then it’s no longer happening. When you’re arguing with your producer at least you have a producer. When you’re divorcing your wife at least you have a wife. When you’re lying to your man at least you have a man. The question of difference is not between various things said, but between speech and silence. When you’re disagreeing with someone, when you’re at odds with someone, in those times you have a someone…when you have that problem employee, that’s you in business. As much of a pain as it is, that’s the essence of what you do. Your choice isn’t between having a problem employee and having a perfect employee; your choice is between having a problem employee and having no employee. The relationship problem that wraps you up at night: that is your relationship, there never was a perfect one, what there was was “problem” ones and no ones at all.

So much it seems

from anna

With regaard to the Kierkegaard,

“Well for one, those who do well in isolation also tend to be completely insane – serial killers come to mind (Ted Kozinski, Mark David Chapman, Jeffrey Dahmer, VA Tech gunman for instance). This is directly related to their isolation and their choices or societal pressure to be or remain in isolation.

The quote is also completely sexist. Women are by biological and evolutionary design more inclined to be sociable and thus “need the herd.” This is of great use to women as they were traditionally in the position of minding the village during hunts and negotiating social workings and relationships. Women are diplomats – they form alliances and support networks (while also being mindful of potential enemies) to best sustain a community, ensuring that the genetics of both they and the community at large are passed on, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, et cetera, et cetera.

Thus the genius of women is directly proportionate to their ability to negotiate relationships. Women use (spoken) language and society in order to further their individual goals, promoting and utilizing interdependence over independence and demonstrating an essential need for the herd itself. Isolation would thus become equivalent to insanity; suicide, if not simply detrimental to the achievement of goals.

Geniuses who must depend on themselves for everything would quickly become overburdened with the minutiae of bodily maintenance (the processes of feeding and providing entirely for themselves by themselves), yet that is the precise sort of isolation Kierkegaard seems to refer to: complete, utter, Thoreau-esque (who, by the way, visited friends quite often for meals and, it was said, so frequently depended on relations to bring him food items and other necessities that without their provisions he might very well have starved to death out by Walden pond). Kierkegaard’s allusions seem to overlook basic sustenance and how could he not for that work also was and is typically done by women and is still overlooked, discounted, and underpaid (or unpaid) by society at large.

“Regardless of its improbability, sexism, or lack of rationality, the quote’s suggestion also begs the question, “In complete isolation from humanity, what insights would such a genius possibly afford of the human condition?” (annakiss)

from anna