I have stated at various times that the centre of the observable universe is 19mm behind the corneas of one's eyeballs. For every person who has ever lived, they can only see the world through their own perspective and by virtue of being that central point, they are also the main character in the narrative of their own lives. It therefore makes rational sense that the self which is at the centre of its own observable universe, which wants to make its existence pleasant, should want to command more of the things it likes and reduce the frequency of the things it does not like. I think that one of the the consequences of being at the centre of the observable universe, is that everyone without exception is both rationally and irrationally selfish. The central character for the beast which shouts "I" at the heart of the kosmos is none other than "I". That rational and irrational selfishness, logically means that people want to do what they like and do not want to do what they do not like. The beast which shouts "I" at the heart of the kosmos wants things that are "yummy" and does not want things that are "not yummy". Yes, this is obvious but this is the cornerstone from which I extend the following set of argument.
The beast which shouts "I" at the heart of the kosmos in an effort to bring the "yummy, yummy, yummy" closer and push the "not yummy" further away, has come up with quite effective stratagems for doing that. When you put various beasts which shout "I" at the heart of the kosmos together, then what ends up happening is that they form like communities. We find other people who are like us and who like us. Paradoxically this is both excellent and horrid at the same time. Human beings as individually small beings can achieve things on their own but achieve massive things together in community and commonwealth. This is the underlying reason why families, clubs, churches, societies, partnerships, companies, corporations and even the nation state exist. Human beings as social beings also have a need for validation and reflection, and so forming community and commonwealth is essential to the proper formation and functioning of a human.
However, although in forming community and commonwealth in an effort to bring the "yummy, yummy, yummy" closer and pushing the "not yummy" further away, human beings are also hideously excellent at shunning and excluding other human beings who for whatever defect, might undermine that community and commonwealth. This is the logical consequence of trying to push the "not yummy" further away. It makes good sense to push away people who are cruel and nasty, but in forming community and commonwealth, cliques are also effective at pushing away people who are perceived as defective in other ways; such as being shy, poor, small, smelly, disabled, mentally different, weird, et cetera. Other people who do not meet the crietria for community and commonwealth are othered; sometimes in not very nice ways. The grounds for exclusion and pushing away people also extends to aspects such as sex, race, religion, et cetera. Those people 'over there' must be excluded, lest they damage us in some way and we accidentally catch their poverty, weirdness, race, disablity, religion, et cetera. Living inside the fortress is lovely for those inside but for those outside, the wilderness can be awful. The ugly truth is that it can be fun and much sport, mirth, and jolity can be had from making someone else's existence miserable. Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.
Loneliness as a thing is so very effective because it makes excellent use of the fact that humans are lost and trapped within the fortress of their own mind. Whilst I think that the idea of solipsism in principle is a rubbish idea, when it comes to one's perception of the world, it makes no functional difference in perspective. At a cosmic level, nobody else can experience the world as you do and neither can you experience the world as they do. There are things that people experience together but these are experienced together proximally at the third thing, or intimately at each other. On that level, there is no experience with someone else from the same perspective, ever. Excluding and shunning someone is so very powerful because they uniquely feel that exclusion; with good reason. Quite literally nobody else can feel what they do.
The hint within the word 'Loneliness' itself, is that this is a singularly singular experience. Keeping that in mind, Loneliness is experienced by someone who stands as the central character of their own universe and by nobody else and this explains why it is so awful to endure. Loneliness can not be shared; which means its burden also can not be shared. Moreover, you can not tell yourself to go away to try and get rid of it either.
There is of course a distinction between being lonely and being alone. It is possible to be alone and yet feel a sense of connectedness and community with people who are not present. It is also possible to be lonely within a sea of people. There is a difference between being alone in a place where you feel that you are supposed to be, as opposed to being in a place where you are supposed to be and are yet still devoid of connectedness and community. There is also a difference between being lonely in a great multitude of abstract indifference, to being lonely within a room of people who in maintaining their own fortress of community and commonwealth, have excluded you and perhaps are being cruel and nasty about it.
The art of weaponsing loneliness is learnt at a surprisingly young age. Children actually get to learn both the joy and power of making someone else feel miserable as well as the hurt from others making then feel miserable at an early age. The phrase "I don't want to be your friend" or "I don't like you" is a direct attack on a person. Children learn very quickly that they can hurt people and be hurt by people in ways that does not involve physical violence, though in some circumstances when bullying crosses that line, weaponised enforced loneliness and physical violence can and do go together. The strange thing is that because the kosmos which we have constructed for ourselves turned schooling into a societal servant for the purposes of serving industrial capitalism, that we place children into hot-boxes of learning factories for more than a decade. Within in these factories, the mechanics of enforcing loneliness is weaponised.
When people get a wee bit older, probably the most intense feelings of loneliness are experienced by teenagers; who biology is flooding their bodies with chemicals in an effort to finally build the child into the adult. I have no method of actually determining if emotions are actually more intense but the proximity and repeated exposure to others for whom deriving sport, mirth, and jollity which is had from making someone else's existence miserable, can not be avoided. It is probably in one's teenage years when one feels the most of everything, love, hate, joy, sadness, community and loneliness.
As with Pain, people who experience Loneliness might develop virtues such as self-esteem, self-worth, resilience, and independence as manufactured responses to Loneliness; but again, not necessarily because Loneliness produces those things. As with Pain, manufactured responses to Loneliness can also include hurt and sadness, despair, hopelessness, depression and even a tiredness of life itself.
Paradoxically I think that Loneliness as a thing is both "not yummy" and yet actually has a purpose. Loneliness is perhaps the process by which we learn that on some deep level no-one else is really there fighting for you in the last garrison; but more importantly, nor can they do so. It is impossible for anyone else to truly have your back until the absolute end. Other people have their own worries and have to make sure that they too are keeping their own head above water. It's enough for them to worry about what today holds, much less about tomorrow for that day holds worries of its own; they have to look out for what is coming over their own horizon. Is any of this actually a bad thing though?
Perhaps people experiencing loneliness might imagine that other people are engaged in expending energy in actively hating them, when this is mostly untrue. Although everyone is intrinsically selfish, an imagined sense that someone is spending their spare time in active hate is simply pointless, when in truth the other person is not thinking about them at all.
Again we turn to those manufactured responses of self-esteem, self-worth, independence, and resilience, as products of the process of Loneliness. Resilience is a necessary quality for an individual to possess in a kosmos which is indifferent and which is populated by other ultimately selfish individuals. Loneliness itself forces us not only to confront the fact that we are ultimately alone in the universe, but that we are on a cosmic level. Nobody does know "what it's like to the bad man, to be the sad man, behind blue eyes"; which means that The Who were correct. The outstanding question is what one is supposed to do with that confrontation.
You can turn the knives inwards. You can accept the accusations of defectiveness with the intent to harm one's self. The scary thing is that people who choose to push away people on the basis of some defect, are very often more likely right than wrong. Anyone who has spent some time introspectively looking at their own person and character, very quickly becomes aware of the defects which others quite rightly suggest exist. You could very well in fact be shy, or poor, mentally different, weird, et cetera. Since you can't escape those grounds of accusation, is it actually worth acting upon those grounds of the accusations of defectiveness? There is no shortage of so-called "self-help" books; which has to be one of the most morally repugnant ideas out there. Self-help assumes that the person who suffers due to the accusations of defectiveness and subsequent exclusion, is more responsible to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, than laying the blame for actually acting cruelly and horribly in the first place.
Or, you can accept the accusations of defectiveness as a statement of inventory. Remember, those accusations are very often more likely right than wrong. A better response is to show one's self the kindness which others withheld. Every manufactured responses to Loneliness is created in the silent and dark workshop of the quiet self. One does not build self-esteem, self-worth, or resilience, without first accepting the premise that one's self is an object which is worthy. The words "I love you", "I need you", "I want you", are the most powerful words in the universe and when backed up with action can and do change lives. When those words are used to to works of kindness to others, they build other people up. When those words are used as hammers to work-harden the self, then the accusations of defectiveness can be met with acceptance that the defect exists.
There is a neat illustration called the "hedgehog's dilemma" which basically states that we are all afraid of getting close to other people, lest they turn their spines outwards and hurt us. However, as deeply social creatures who both need to love and be loved and who need to validate others and to be validated, those spines make it hard to actually fulfil our own needs. Accepting the premise that one's self is an object which is worthy and accepting the premise that others are also objects which are worthy, might very well be the key to solving the dilemma. It really does not help that the hedgehog's dilemma itself is cause for people inventing defensive strategies and coping mechanisms; which themselves are causes for accusations of defectiveness.
The unspoken truth which hides behind the corneas of someone else's eyeballs, is that they too are also small, pathetic, and often do not have terribly much power in the kosmos. People dare not speak about this awful truth that often because the idea in the face of a mostly indifferent kosmos is horrifying. People are afraid to be vulnerable because if they hold themselves out and other people do not like them, then that's all that they have. The telos of loneliness if there is one, is that realisation that if this is all that one has, then the fact that one is alone and adrift in the kosmos, is not necessarily sufficient grounds to turn the knives inwards. IF this is all that I have and all that I am, I might actually be pretty neat.
No comments:
Post a Comment