(no subject)

[adrienmundi]

To pick up in the same neighborhood as before, if not the same address:

Not knowing things really bugs me; I don't know that I've ever outgrown that toddleresque demand of "Why?". I suspect that it's only been compounded with age, as I become more aware of that I do not know as I learn more. I don't think I want to know everything, just everything in which I am interested (only the tiniest of differences, practically). In a way, I think this ties into the "rules" discussion; not knowing the social landscape, the bounds and penalties, makes me unsettled, for the previously discussed reasons, as well as the whole just not knowing.

This retreat to conservative possibilities is ceasing to serve, I think. I keep having the nagging feeling that I'm missing out on something, or potentially something, and really have no one to blame for this but myself. I don't think it's just hesitation; if I don't know the lay of things, I often don't know how to proceed, no matter how I may want to. It becomes something that nags at me, this desire for more/better/different, with little navigational assistance that I can find. I envy greatly those who seem to navigate by some internal sense, and who seem to misstep substantially less than I think I do (I'm willing to grant that, not being privy to the internal dialogues, it may be all appearance). There are people with whom I want to be closer, those already close with whom I want interactions to be richer, and the one with whom I want them to be clear and unfiltered. I'm greedy, I guess, and impatient.

Comments

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

I envy greatly those who seem to navigate by some internal sense, and who seem to misstep substantially less than I think I do (I'm willing to grant that, not being privy to the internal dialogues, it may be all appearance).

From my experience, at least, I perceive that I'm misstepping all the time. I think, though, that I've got this concept that I'm kind of on hot coals, so can't really take time to stop and think, it's that I *must* keep stepping, else I'll lose all ability to walk.

When I stop to think about it, I'm willing to bet that you don't see me as misstepping much ...

[adrienmundi]

While the impulse to see you as one of those for whom it is easy exists, I have been exposed enough to the reported inner dialogue to get, more often than not, that it isn't.

[scottopic.livejournal.com]

I think you can expand that out to include "most, if not all, people"

The bad: very few have it all down pat, which may seem daunting, since it'd seem to imply it's near impossible.

The good: you're minimally as good as anyone else, and I'd posit better than most.

[adrienmundi]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. While I'm willing to grant the accuracy of your perspective, I just don't feel it, if that makes sense. Maybe that's part of the struggle.

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

You see where this whole 'grounding' thing comes in now? Also, the question of whether these are theoretical solliloquies or actual dialogical efforts--
Are you just interested in diagnosing/describing the inner workings of your reality? If so, you have succeeded quite accurately, and you have been succeeding (more or less accurately) for quite some time now. But unless all you want to do is make a (granted, clarified) entrenched "what is" and "this is who I am" statement, something more has to happen. And, to stick to your own wording from above, reconciling 'logical accuracy' with "feeling" seems to be what needs to be worked on. Just because something sounds reasonable and you can find no real 'flaw' by which to tear it down, it does not follow that it will immediately infuse your reality. The process of accepting is soemtimes much harder than discovering (if that makes any sense). But do not embrace that reluctance ("humility"/"fear of hubris"/whatever) too tightly-- it is not synonymous with "hesitation and wandering."

Look at this as a scene unfolding, where 'you' have no specific stake at the moment of watching: Person A seems to think that person B 'flows' eloquently through life, while A feels awkward, undirected, whatever. But person A will more than likely seem to flow pretty nicely as well to person C (who in turn fdeels awkward/whatever). And in all that, it is almost guaranteed that, at least in some point in time and in some situations, person B will look at person C (and person A and person whoever) and think "woa... they sure do have their shit togeter.... now why can't I be like that"
Lesson? We are all at times competent, at times incompetent, may feel totally in tune or totally out of whack from one moment to the next. None of that makes us less or more worthy of, or (il)legitimates quests and claims to happiness.

[adrienmundi]

By "grounding", do you mean specifics entering so as to add solid points of contact/-text, or do you mean something along the lines of taking on faith these things? Or possibly something else entirely?

Re:

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

relate to specific experiential instances, i think...
I'd be willing to guess that you do not have the same power relations with everyone, the same levels and kinds of uncertainty with everyone and at diferent situations etc. Seems important that these are identified and mined.

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

oh yea
what i wanted to say in reality, and got sidetracked with all the rest of that stuff

The above is noot a matter of feeling or logic as much as it is data

[fairyhead.livejournal.com]

Well, good, at least, that you can see that.

I'm sure that there are people, out there, for whom those social questions don't exist. I think most people, though, spend a lot of time worrying about it. It's scary and, for me, never seems to get clearer. While I'll manage to figure out the 'rules' for one situation, there'll always be 10 new situations popping up.

Along those lines, though, I do find that I'm getting an insy bit better at forgiving myself, when I do feel like I've messed up. So, maybe, the answer isn't about always being able to forsee what to do, but to get more nimble at moving on ...

[skiadaimonos.livejournal.com]

*clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap*

[champignon.livejournal.com]

Fuck it. I had a nicely put response to this, and LiveJournal managed to eat it, even though I copied it.

I don't think I can rewrite it now, but the gist of it was that I often feel the frustration that I interpret your post to be expressing.

My view of things, though, is that no one starts out navigating. Navigating, to me, implies you already know that lay of the land, so to speak. We have to start out exploring. It's like one of those video games where the layout of the terrain is blacked out until you've explored it. As you progress, bit by bit you uncover a map. To progress, you have to move around and explore, taking the chance that you'll run into traps and monsters, but also unexpected good things. It's a scary process, and some people more than others seem more fearless of, or less sensitive to, groping about in the dark.

As you explore, you begin to learn the lay of things--draw a mental map--until you are then able to begin navigating. Of course, life is change and you can never be sure exactly how to navigate. Having the map doesn't mean the road is still there or is passable. So there's always at least a modicum of scary exploration.

It makes me feel better to think that the problem lies in something I can work on--learning to make bigger, more assured exploratory steps--than something impossible--finding the unwritten map that doesn't exist anywhere in full.

We all know our own missteps all too well. But usually others only see our progress. And the trail we leave, but if that goes all over the place, they just think us curious and/or thorough. I think. :-)