I think I would rather be visited by the self-who-is-seen-by-others: fingers crossed that version would be doing their utmost to be genuinely kind and supportive. - And actually I think they might have more clarity, sitting with, giving their presence.
The just-me self is still practising self-compassion. - And what about the benefits of slight detachment from the trees, so that one can see the woods? - Although the just-me self knows the complexity.
~~~~
Truly though, there might be only a slight difference.
Interesting, I never did understand Birdman. I thought it too strange for words. Your words have given me a whole new perspective. I have to ask myself if I present a different persona depending where and what I am doing or who I am with. I probably do.
It certainly was a challenge. Probably the most difficult movie I ever tried to weave into a Perspective(s). It received so many accolades that I knew I had to grapple with it and I hope I made some sense out of the insanity it was pointing us toward. If, indeed, that's what it was doing! lol!
I, too, would prefer to be with the self-who-is-seen-by-others. But just acknowledging that seems harsh, then, because we know that other "me" is totally accessible at any time. Just have someone knock on your front door and there she is: Sweet-&-Supposedly-Better-You (and me!).
So what keeps us from being that beautiful, patient, inquisitive, kind, and wise person all the time?
Perhaps we usually are, but we remember the times we were impatient with a neighbour, snippy to a family member, dismissive to a sales person and we lay that down as the baseline for our belief about who we are. Maybe we tend to be too critical about ourselves and see those negative behaviours or difficult occasions as traits or norms when, they were just bad days. Maybe we are pretty darned good and just really uncomfortable acknowledging it.
My belief is that I don't exist as a person, a character, a set of values, or even as a collection of independent thoughts EXCEPT through a relationship. And yes, that can include the relationship that I have with myself.
By my definition, Gretta, the 'person' (and all of the things you spoke of) are DEFINED by what relationship is applicable at that very moment. We don't change ourselves, just because we are with different people or in different settings - we literally ARE different people, in every non-physical meaning of the word.
Those relationships can influence each other so that changes in one can impact the person you are in another relationship. I guess this must be true because every change in an external relationship can impact the relationship that you have with yourself, thus impacting all others.
By including my solitary time as a relationship, some might call that cheating. And yet I know that, for example, if I am walking around outside at night, I can make a conscious decision to scare the living daylights out of myself with just one wild childish(?) thought of horror. Or I can choose to immediately suppress that. If you don't think you are defined by a relationship, even when you are alone, go tell yourself that in the mirror. I rest my case.
For me, the answer to "who am I" is not a static noun. It's a dynamic verb.
I sent this to a friend... and received this reply as per written
I am not a single voice speaking from within me, nor am I a fixed outline, waiting to be recognised.
I guess that I’m what takes shape when attention is paid, moreso in good company.
Then, I’m the sum of my responses, both to silence and also to company,
to safety and also to risk, to being seen and also to being left alone.
Definitely, I am much altered by those who walk beside me,
and I am revealed, in part, by how I change in their presence.
I am not diminished by this, but generally exhilarated and expanded.
What I know now is this, that I am not best understood in isolation, not even by myself.
I am most truthful where there is exchange, reflection, and the courage to remain unfinished, and pensive.
So, if I were to meet myself as another, sit quietly, maybe share tea, and listen without urgency, here’s what I would hope to encounter …… not a finished character, but a receptive one. Someone attentive. Someone learning. Someone willing to be shaped without losing her centre.
Thank you so much for sharing the post, but more, for sharing this very thoughtful response to it. I could write a whole paragraph (if not a complete blog) on almost every point Margie made. In particular, the realization that she is "not best understood in isolation." I will put some thought to that and the difficultly it presents an introvert who spends most of her days in solitude. Worthy reflections. Thank you for bringing them to us.
I think I would rather be visited by the self-who-is-seen-by-others: fingers crossed that version would be doing their utmost to be genuinely kind and supportive. - And actually I think they might have more clarity, sitting with, giving their presence.
The just-me self is still practising self-compassion. - And what about the benefits of slight detachment from the trees, so that one can see the woods? - Although the just-me self knows the complexity.
~~~~
Truly though, there might be only a slight difference.
Thanks for your thoughts and prompts, Gretta.
Interesting, I never did understand Birdman. I thought it too strange for words. Your words have given me a whole new perspective. I have to ask myself if I present a different persona depending where and what I am doing or who I am with. I probably do.
It certainly was a challenge. Probably the most difficult movie I ever tried to weave into a Perspective(s). It received so many accolades that I knew I had to grapple with it and I hope I made some sense out of the insanity it was pointing us toward. If, indeed, that's what it was doing! lol!
I, too, would prefer to be with the self-who-is-seen-by-others. But just acknowledging that seems harsh, then, because we know that other "me" is totally accessible at any time. Just have someone knock on your front door and there she is: Sweet-&-Supposedly-Better-You (and me!).
So what keeps us from being that beautiful, patient, inquisitive, kind, and wise person all the time?
Perhaps we usually are, but we remember the times we were impatient with a neighbour, snippy to a family member, dismissive to a sales person and we lay that down as the baseline for our belief about who we are. Maybe we tend to be too critical about ourselves and see those negative behaviours or difficult occasions as traits or norms when, they were just bad days. Maybe we are pretty darned good and just really uncomfortable acknowledging it.
Who am I?
My belief is that I don't exist as a person, a character, a set of values, or even as a collection of independent thoughts EXCEPT through a relationship. And yes, that can include the relationship that I have with myself.
By my definition, Gretta, the 'person' (and all of the things you spoke of) are DEFINED by what relationship is applicable at that very moment. We don't change ourselves, just because we are with different people or in different settings - we literally ARE different people, in every non-physical meaning of the word.
Those relationships can influence each other so that changes in one can impact the person you are in another relationship. I guess this must be true because every change in an external relationship can impact the relationship that you have with yourself, thus impacting all others.
By including my solitary time as a relationship, some might call that cheating. And yet I know that, for example, if I am walking around outside at night, I can make a conscious decision to scare the living daylights out of myself with just one wild childish(?) thought of horror. Or I can choose to immediately suppress that. If you don't think you are defined by a relationship, even when you are alone, go tell yourself that in the mirror. I rest my case.
For me, the answer to "who am I" is not a static noun. It's a dynamic verb.
I sent this to a friend... and received this reply as per written
I am not a single voice speaking from within me, nor am I a fixed outline, waiting to be recognised.
I guess that I’m what takes shape when attention is paid, moreso in good company.
Then, I’m the sum of my responses, both to silence and also to company,
to safety and also to risk, to being seen and also to being left alone.
Definitely, I am much altered by those who walk beside me,
and I am revealed, in part, by how I change in their presence.
I am not diminished by this, but generally exhilarated and expanded.
What I know now is this, that I am not best understood in isolation, not even by myself.
I am most truthful where there is exchange, reflection, and the courage to remain unfinished, and pensive.
So, if I were to meet myself as another, sit quietly, maybe share tea, and listen without urgency, here’s what I would hope to encounter …… not a finished character, but a receptive one. Someone attentive. Someone learning. Someone willing to be shaped without losing her centre.
That, for now, I think, is enough of an answer!
Margie Sheridan-Wallis.Nottingham. Jan 4th
Thank you so much for sharing the post, but more, for sharing this very thoughtful response to it. I could write a whole paragraph (if not a complete blog) on almost every point Margie made. In particular, the realization that she is "not best understood in isolation." I will put some thought to that and the difficultly it presents an introvert who spends most of her days in solitude. Worthy reflections. Thank you for bringing them to us.