Sunday, August 21, 2022

This tree I didn’t plant

Grew up choking.

Reaching through the uncaring grid

Wires, pressing into its neck

So slowly it didn’t even notice

That it was being cut in half.

  

Snip the lines and slip it free

From its first embrace,

Familiar, but murderous.

 

Pry its roots from the earth,

And for  those that don’t release their grasp--

The spade.

 

It may not survive in its new, lush soil.

Impossible to move it without butchering.

It was alive where it was,

But how long could it have continued

Casting suppliant leaves at the sky,

Winged seeds at the earth.

 

Monday, June 05, 2017

The last time I went back home, it was not to see literal family.  My parents had long since moved away from that town, as had my sister.  And though my brother and his wife still live there, I've done all I can to chip away the wall between us from my side.  The rest is on him. There are cracks, but only just. 

No, I went to see those I think of as my tribe.  Those who fought bravely with  me on stage, in the classroom, or in the kitchen.  Chief among these was J.  J was and is a science teacher with whom I had the good fate to work alongside my first year teaching.  We were on the same three person team, we attended the same certification classes, and that still wasn't enough for us.  On the weekends we would dance, and get drunk, and be shameless in public together like giddy undergrads.  The world was ours, because we were both bright, energetic, and fearless.  When she started dating another teacher, I was there.  When they got married, I was there.  And when she had a beautiful girl, even more wild and fearless than she is, I was, well, nearby.

I assumed that one day I would fall in love, get married, have a child, all of those things, and that she would stand there with me and hold a bouquet and wear satin and cry.  Naturally, seeing her and her kids!  Two now! was going to be a highlight.  How bizarre to run into the wall that had arisen between us in my absence.    On whose side had this painfully cordial wall been built?  And how could one even mention it? What if it was my fault?

And there was also E.  Another formidable woman, but not wild; grave, imposing, almost institutional in her regal grace.  We had been performing together in The Threepenny Opera, and often found ourselves waiting together to go on during the act one tango.  As such dramatic people as we are often do, we once found ourselves seized with the music and began to tango offstage.  No choreography, just the smooth wordless communication of two likeminded people becoming likebodied.  Reading the subtle shifts of each others' weight, turning and seizing each other in a seething dance that was pure instinct.  For a moment, we lived in each other's minds, and such a rare experience bore repeating.  We did it at every performance, the sort of ritual that comes naturally backstage.  The rest of the cast caught wind of it, and came to watch, each of them getting their own vicarious thrill from the sight, some of them obviously aroused. And then one day I didn't come.  I was busy getting run over by a semi.

Years later we performed again, this time in Princess Ida.  At the first performance, we met backstage before the act one finale.  We grabbed each other and began to swivel, turning with the music.  As it turns out, the tango is much better done on two legs.  Nonetheless, we continued to dwell in each other, and bear a part of each other with us.  Somehow we had managed to meet every three years or so since then, and the existence of that connection was greatly reassuring.

When I met E for coffee on my last trip, I could feel the wall instantly.  Perhaps I was expecting it because I had run into the same wall with J just days earlier.  At any rate, I was hurt, but not surprised.  How was this possible?  How could two people go from operating as one, with an almost telepathic unity, to greeting each other as strangers? 

Which brings me to B.  I will spoil the ending by saying that this was different.  I was never quite as close to B as I was to the other two.  Circumstances simply didn't force us together in daily, intimate contact.  But every chance I got, I would trot over to her room on my free period, and tease her in front of her students, drag her out for a coffee, or otherwise force my presence on her.  She was and is brisk, energetic, and uninhibited, utterly without pretense, existing in a free, natural state that all who love the wind find intoxicating.  We both loved books on a level that far transgressed the ridiculous, and even after we were no longer working at the same school, we met to talk about literature, giggle together, and mock her porcine (now ex) husband. 

No doubt B had changed just as J and E had, or else I had changed in a way that she would perceive as a wall.  As I walked to the front door of the house that she shared with her new husband and son, my expectations were low.  But the "Hey, you!" with which I was greeted was exactly the same one that I knew.  And the B that I sat with, ate with, and talked about ridiculous nerdy things with was the same one I had done those things with before.  To anyone else, she was a new person.  She liked role playing games and SCA now.  She was a mom, for goodness sake.  But no.  The garden that we had shared together was not only intact, it had not so much as a cobweb in it.  Nor does it yet.

Intimacy is a very strange thing.  So often we find like minded people in our vicinity, and begin to grow attached to them.  But there is a difference between knowing a person, and merely being with them.  We need people.  Some of us, I say with a guilty smirk, need them too much.  And so we seek them out, people to be with, to exist with, to get through the meat grinder of life with, and we build connections based on that.  But those connections are not really between selves; they are between personae.  The J that I drank with, the E that I danced with, and the me that they knew, were not real; they were constructs, necessary for survival, but just as subject to change and wear as anything else.  I am not who I was then.  Nor are they.  And I have changed and grown so much in this, my 40th year, that I might well be unrecognizable to them at this point.  But for whatever reason, B and I met each other at a different level.  We did not know each other's personae; we knew each other.  We encountered something unchangeable in each other. And that is why even after ten years, divorces, births, marriages, and thousands of miles later, we can pick up exactly where we left off, poking fun at stupid things, loving beautiful things, and knowing each other.  No doubt it will be just so in fifty years as well. I don't know how the cosmology of these things works, but I take some comfort in the possibility that the tears I have shed and am shedding even now for her have some sort of surface tension, and can pull a fraction of her pain and sadness through the space time continuum, away from her, as they drop on my desk.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Cognitive Subroutines

Subroutine: "Wanna come to a barbecue?"

Stimulus:
A friend invites the perception of self (s) to a social event, at which other perceptions of selves will be present.

Primary response:
Among the other perceptions of selves that will be present at event, calculate odds of one or more of said ps meeting the criteria:

  • p[original viewpoint unique to p] ~ [viewpoint adopted without modification from other source]
  • ∃x : (x ∈ [interests and desires]s ∧ x ∈ [interests and desires]p)
  • [s ATTRACT p] ∧ [p ATTRACT s]
Secondary responses:
Why is this my first reaction to any social event?  Am I really so uncomfortable with my own company that I  automatically assess every new person I meet according to their suitability as a romantic partner?

Analysis:
I am clearly not yet ready to meet anyone who would be worth my time.  As long as this subroutine is running, the odds of my throwing yet another body into the void are above acceptable tolerances.

Subroutine: "Good job.  I'm pleased."

Stimulus:
SHOW [p, s, AFFECTION > 0]

Primary response:
set interior monologue to [s LOVE p

Secondary responses:
Are you crazy?  We've been down this semantic path before.  This is desire, mistaken for love.  Get a grip, Mary.

Analysis:
As for subroutine "Wanna come to a barbecue?"




Tuesday, July 12, 2016



Be careful where you wave your arms,
or beat your wings.
These threads that I have spun
are me, the issue of my own body,
and are attached only to themselves--
Thoughts to ideas
To words to memories to stories
No more than a leaf at either end
Holding them to the Earth.
If come here you must,
With your own troubled threads,
Best be a spider
Or the wind.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

We are all experts at others' lives.  There are so many people who come to me for advice, a hearing ear, a different perspective, and more often than not they leave satisfied.  This is not because I have the answers, but because I often have the right questions.  And when the person seeking my counsel wants to know where to go next with their lives, the right question is, "What are you avoiding?  What are you afraid of?  Because on the other side of that lies your larger, truer self."

And so it is that our failures are almost always more revealing than our successes.  I don't speak of the times we pour our whole being into something, and it doesn't turn out the way we foresaw.  I don't think of those as failures.  Rather, I refer to the times when we allow fear, pride, or laziness to get in the way of something.  When that happens, it's a gift, a window for us to look through and ask, "Why?  Why was this the thing that I chose to avoid?  And what is on the other side of it?"

I suspect that we all do as I do.  That we all have moments when a simple thing that needs done, and wouldn't even require that much to do, triggers a schism in our consciousness, and we suddenly become two people.  One who knows what needs done, and one who doesn't.  A conscious, self-determined, methodical mind, and an automaton, whose full articulation gives the illusion of sentience.  It is this latter version of ourselves who takes over, blocking off the knowledge of her or his responsibility, and forcing the former version away in a locked cabinet from which it looks on helplessly.  "Who is this person who is not opening his email?  Just open the email!  Just write the cover letter!  Just make the doctor's appointment!" he screams, but his voice is muffled, and we pretend not to hear his pleas.  Perhaps we play another round of Candy Crush, or watch another episode of Sons of Anarchy, or eat another bag of M&Ms instead of doing the simple thing that the better version of ourselves would already be doing.

I am led to believe that those blessed with strength of will, in these moments, wrest control of themselves, break open the cabinet, and do that which they have decided to do.  I am not one of these for whom deciding to do something is as good as having done it.  My strength is not in will, but in insight.  And so that better version of me, powerless though he often is to wrest control, can at least, as he sweeps up the mess the automated version of himself has wrought, ask "Why?"

And the answer rarely has to do with the task itself, the actual thing being avoided.  The answer lies in what is so terrifying on the other side, that we not only don't open the door, we lock all knowledge of the door away.  I can't answer for others, although sometimes I can help them ask the question.  But as for myself, the answer is always the same.

And that answer is revealed in the nature of the tasks that trigger the schism, the sudden division between mind and body that leaves me a trapped observer sealed in a puppet, as it flails around with its wooden limbs and smashes things.  There are those who think of me as a strong determined person, because they have seen me set my sights on a goal, and neither rest nor blink until it is accomplished gloriously.  But these successes, these moments of resplendent glory all have two things in common.  They involve a tangible product--often an event, or a work of art or literature--and they are done for the benefit of others.  Likewise, the things that are avoided have something in common.  They have no external proof of their completion, and they are for me.  If only one or the other be true--if the task be a nebulous one for others' benefit,  or a concrete one for my own sake--then the task usually gets accomplished, but without the fiery determination that seems to have been channeled from another dimension.

But something purely internal, done for my own benefit, is the hair trigger on my avoidance.  The reason is simple.  On the other side of those actions is the fact that the only thing I want, or have ever wanted does not exist.  I'm afraid to even write it down, to invoke the desire that drives me to distraction, the absence of which is on the other side of every last tear.  Either there is no word for it, or that word is locked away where I can't see it, but I know what it would look like.  Alai kissing Ender on the cheek and whispering, "Salaam."  Jonathon stripping himself of his robe and giving it to David.  Roland and Oliver, baring their heads and swearing, "Je vos aim plus q'homme de mere né."  Enkidu, on his deathbed, proclaiming to Gilgamesh, "Once I ran for you, for the water of life, and I now have nothing."

Lest you think I speak of a romantic partner, let me disabuse you of that right now.  It could be that, it could!  One with whom to gird myself for battle, like the sacred band of Thebes, and rush gloriously together into the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.   But it could just as surely be a teacher, a mentor, someone who will tell me what the fuck to do, for god's sake, before I fall upon the thorns of life and bleed out.  Or even a friend, an ally, for the love of all that is good and holy someone who will not leave, who realizes what I truly am and doesn't run away, screaming. How often have I thought I found one or the other of these!  And how often was I wrong!

But this other half of me exists only in fiction.  And it is this truth that lies on the other side of every task I avoid.  There is no Enkidu, no Alai, no Jonathon, and no Oliver.  There is only me.  I am he who asks, and he who knows; he who protects, and he who relies; he who gives, and he who receives.  It is I alone who can fill the gasping void that drives me.  And that terrifies me.  The aching desire itself is infinitely more comfortable than the knowledge that I must satisfy it myself.  But what is known cannot be unknown.  It can be locked away, muffled, ignored, but never destroyed.  And neither can it be embraced, for to do so, to fill the void which I myself am, to satisfy the gaping maw of desire with my own existence, would be to fold in upon myself and cease to exist.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

A Bit of Stichomancy

So I'm feeling paranoid and dramatic, and my mind won't let me be realistic. All day, I've been making things up that, while they technically could happen, are so wild and dramatic I reek of self sabotage.  I've decided to ground myself with a little bit of stichomancy.  I've selected four books that speak to me, and am going to open them up at "random" and see what they have to say.  First up: The Science of Mind, by Ernest Holmes:

page 498: If we lack wisdom, we are to come to the source of all knowledge and we shall receive it.  But how are we to ask?  In faith, believing.  A double-minded man gets nowhere.  How true this is!  GOD CAN GIVE US ONLY WHAT WE TAKE, and since the taking is a mental act, WE CAN ONLY TAKE WHAT WE BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAVE!  This is in accord with the teachings of Jesus: that when we pray, we must believe we already have the answer to our prayer.

interpretation:  I have been of two minds about my current situation, so it is only natural that I am feeling insecure about it.  If I am open to the direction of the universe, then whatever the outcome will be to my long term benefit, and that which I fear cannot harm me. 

Second: The Bible, NRSV

Joshua 20:1-5 Then the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying, "Say to the Israelites, 'Appoint the sities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, so that anyone who kills a person without intent or by mistake may flee there; they shall be for you a refuge from the avenger of blood.  The slayer shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the sity, and explain the case to the leders of the city; then the fugitive shall be taken into the city, and be given a place, and shall remain with them.

Interpretation:  I cannot allow my natural dramatic and paranoid nature to eclipse my belief in the fundamental benevolence of the universe.  Up until this point, things have always worked out for me, and even the seemingly most tragic and devastating events have been for my benefit.  There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.

Third: A Course in Miracles

Page 473: A miracle is a correction.  It does not create, nor really change at all.  It merely looks on devastation, and reminds the mind that what it sees is false.  It undoes error, but does not attempt to go beyond perception, nor exceed the function of forgiveness.  Thus it stay's within time's limits.  Yet it paves the way for a return to timelessness and love's awakening, for fear must slip away nder the gentle remedy it brings.

Interpretation:  any perception of attack or danger is based on a faulty conception of reality, one based on the catastrophically flawed perceptions of our own senses.  Reality, as it is, has no concept of attack or danger.  The only miracle is the realization of our own sinlessness, and this realization causes all thoughts of attack or danger to dry up and blow away.

Fourth:  The Diamond Sutra

Chapter 17: The Buddha said, "So it is Subhuti.  And if a bodhisattva says, 'I shall iberate other beings,' that person is not called a 'bodhisattva'.  And why not? Subhuti, is there any such dharma as a bodhisattva?"

The venerable Subhuti replied, " No, indeed, Bhagavan.  There is no such dharma as a bodhisattva."

The Buddha said, "And beings, subhuti, 'beings' are said by the Tathagata to be no beings.  Thus are they called 'beings.'  And thus does the Tathagata say, "all dharmas have no self, all dharmas have no life, no individuality, and no soul.'"

Interpretation:  One of the recurrent patterns of the diamond sutra, one that can be subsituted with my own question:  There is no such thing as paranoia.  'paranoia' is said by the Tathagata to be no paranoia.  Thus is it called "paranoia".    I am neither paranoid, nor not paranoid.  To judge oneself for one's thoughts is the form of attachment that we call arrogance.  I have thoughts.  I experience those thoughts, and then I have other thoughts.  They have no necessary connection to reality.  They have no existence in and of themselves, anymore than do the dreams I have every night.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

I guess I'm writing in this blog again.

Because I don't know any other way to process my life.  You don't mind, dear reader, if I talk to you for a little while, do you?

When I lost my leg, the pain was quit severe.  Confined as I was to a hospital bed, there was little for me to do about it either.  The pain medication was dutifully rationed, and did little to dull the sensations anyway.  I was reduced to metaphor as a coping mechanism.  I ran through the traditional comparisons rather quickly, as there turn out to be only two: my stump was on fire, or it was being jabbed with tiny knives.

Easily bored and of a literary bent, I began to think of other ways to describe what was happening.  What remained of my leg wasn't on fire, but encased in ice, submerged in acid, being chewed by dogs.  It wasn't knives that I felt plunging into it, but stiletto heels, plastic cocktail swords, long filaments of coarse wire.  These metaphors also soon ran out.

So I expanded my reach.  The ways we describe pain are incredibly arbitrary after all.  What is the difference in sensation between being burnt and frozen?  How is the pain of losing a limb different from the pain of being electrocuted? Biologically speaking, the difference is insignificant indeed.  It is not the sensation itself, but the circumstances that accompany it which decide how we view it. If I didn't have any context--if I couldn't see for myself the blank space at the end of the gauze--would I even know that my leg had been removed, instead of having been stuck into a cauldron of piranhas?  Would it even hurt?

I decided to try an experiment.  I imagined that instead of lightning or fire or knives, that it was snowflakes falling on my new meat.  That each dart of what I had come to assume was pain, was in fact a large, icy crystal falling on my skin and slowly melting.  And then a brightly colored gerber daisy, poking through the surface and opening its petals.  The feet of little birds, the tongue of a cat, a phosphorescent lichen glowing blue in the antiseptic air.

I was not entirely successful.  For a moment I would be able to see the sensation as something other than pain, even as something beautiful, but I am far too attached to my perceptions for it to have lasted.  I had at that point been believing in pain for thirty years, and the time it evidently takes to disbelieve outlasted my stay in that room.  The tyranny of perception has a great hold on me.   But its hold is not absolute.  Pain isn't real.  It has no identity of its own, and no particular root in reality.  It is a psychosocial construct, one that we would forget the moment we stopped believing in it--or even if something else captured our attention.  If the coffee cup next to me as I write this suddenly asked me how my day had been, no doubt I would cease to feel the throbbing that even today plagues me.  All available processors would be devoted to this new phenomenon, and such a trivial thing as pain would be shuffled to the bottom of the task list.

And there are those who learn to do exactly that after extensive training and meditation.  Fire walkers and the like are a well documented fact.  Pain is a sensation that we can interpret as we see fit.  And what is true for physical pain is true for emotional pain as well.  Emotion is like water: it has no flavor of its own, but merely takes on the character of that which surrounds it.  The tears that come from a particularly moving scene on the stage or a glorious panorama are neither happy nor sad.  They are the water of emotion, building up and finally breaking free.

And so it is that what I am today is neither happy nor sad.  I am just emotionally soggy.  Yes, this has been a difficult year.  Yes, I have been through betrayal, abandonment, and ill-usage of the moderate to severe variety.  But is this pain?  Only if I decide that it is.  I could easily look around this isolated room, filled with reminders of three wasted years, occupied only by my own sad, hobbled, aging meat, and interpret the rush of emotions as loneliness, desperation, hopelessness . . . or I could decide that this is what the song of a goldfinch feels like, a magnesium flare, bright green leaves piercing the bark of a tree in spring and unfolding.  This could easily be pain.  But it could just as easily be something else.