A fruitful journey with another man will be fruitless if we walk – me as me, he as he
21 Comments
Leave a reply to Monarc Cancel reply
Sun & Sea
Sanctuary - Sealed and Unsealed
A fruitful journey with another man will be fruitless if we walk – me as me, he as he
Sanctuary - Sealed and Unsealed
Life In Every Breath 
People don’t have to walk as one in order to walk together; they can walk side by side until the road splits them. People can walk together for a time, and then go their separate ways all the while walking as themselves, not as each other. Think of romantic relationships… we walk side by side until death takes us, and death always people individually, because people always walk as individuals.
correction…death always takes* people…
Again, you don’t get it, and for now, that’s the simplest way I can express it. He that gets it, gets it
I do get it, I just disagree.
If you had gotten it, you’d have realized that your disagreement is within the post up there.
By the way, currently watching a spider fight itself in a mirror. How funny and cool is that? 🙂
Haha, sounds hilarious!
Obviously my disagreement is within the post or else I wouldn’t be able to respond or understand it. But, just because my disagreement is within, it doesn’t mean that I have to agree with the post. I disagree with the post, and it’s because of the thought it communicates that I am able to disagree, the disagreement comes out of the thought it communicates and the thought is within it.
Aw c’mon, that’s not what I meant. I meant that yes, they walk as individuals but they do not close their windows to the winds of others. All too often people totally rule out the influences or contributions of others on their lives. For instance, you ask for clarity but I totally rule you out and stick only to mine. That way I gain nothing, always walking as me before, me after, me forever, never changing – that’s the meaning of me and he up there. It’s an alternative way of talking about laissez-allez – in this case the one who brings control and the free one avoid each other thus both are laissez-aller (at least in some way or to my mind :-))
Laissez-aller means to let go of restraint, or to let go. What is let go is not the self, but an aspect of it one characterizes too closely with it. The self can’t be restrained, only an aspect of it can. Nobody, the world too, doesn’t want to restrain an individual entirely, but simply an aspect of them. When two people walk down the road together, they share aspects, they share the road, not each other.
Nobody said they share each other – don’t be misled by the words. Anyway, you’ve got what I was saying partially
If you don’t want me to be misled by the words, then paint a picture of what you’re trying to convey, or alter the words slightly. Maybe a story with dialogue might be a better representation of your thoughts.
“…for now, that’s the simplest way I can express it. He that gets it, gets it”
That was my initial statement
So, you’re not willing to express yourself differently and try to help people get it, simply because you believe that the way you say it is so perfect that its impossible for another human being who gets it like you do to miss the point. You believe that there is at least one person out there who thinks, feels and talks like you in every single way such that they can understand what you say without a problem. This is an admirable desire and belief, but I promise you it’s worthless — I was there once, I had to let it go and just accept that I am completely individual and if people are going to understand me, they’ll need some help from my end because they too are individual, and a big gulf separates us on a day to day basis. We’re one in way, but in another way we are completely separate.
I said “..for now..”
And, I have tried once already
“This is an admirable desire and belief, but I promise you it’s worthless — I was there once, I had to let it go”
By the way, that’s not my desire at all and I don’t think it’s admirable. I like to and try to communicate but you’re so a difficult interlocutor that it’s annoying. And, you’re also annoying cos you’re very inconsiderate in your ‘nonsense’ dispensation, but I understand you more now so you’re not as annoying. I like to use you as practice but you were getting annoying based on a misconstrual, my misconstrual; and, you must have mercy, you’ll be a bad teacher if you don’t 🙂 . As for me, I don’t care about your extreme taxing, I know what I want
Haha, interlocution is akin to a dance or a duel, if you can’t perform the steps or you can’t get tired before one of us is down, it’s just normal. Two things you can do though, you either learn the steps, carry on duelling, or you stop dancing, you forfeit the duel.
I am not trying to teach you, I am trying to duel and dance with you. Interlocution has no authority in it except an expression that is communicable. Interlocution it’s just a flow, a game, a movement that gets tougher and tougher, but also more and more interesting.
Correction: you get* tired before one of us is down.
“I am not trying to teach you”
What about the others you’ll surely teach someday, your kids, your students, friends? You’re not trying to teach me but I’m using you to learn
The others will be dancing with me as you are dancing, and they too ‘might’ use me to learn. 🙂
So, you like to be ‘used’ eh? Good thing you’re not a lady then 🙂
But, it’s a pleasurable, satisfying, even elating feeling when one is used like that. It’s a shame that such satisfaction from such experiences is dying these days. It’s a reward to be beneficial in educational terms, for me