Have you ever heard the rather self-aggrandizing criticism one person might level against another that the other can't cope with reality, or misperceives it (to the point, it is to laugh, that more than just the object of criticism suffers)? As fault-finding goes, I've always found that one a waste of time. For one thing, I wager most people are like me: if they even contemplate the nature of reality, they assume it's whatever they can't help but experience moment by moment, squared against their memories of a life lived in the only world they've ever known. Sure, the world will surprise you as long as you are alive, but reality is more or less constant.
Were one to correct another's perception of reality, what frame of reference does one even begin with? Who actually has the temerity to propose that they've got the most comprehensively mapped, paramaterized reality? Since I already know my senses are occasionally suspect, subject to deception, error, misinterpretation, even full-blown hallucination, I'm just not going to presume, and then read about Buddhist monks pulling the ground out from under one another...
Words like delusion, psychosis and insane, among others, get bandied about far too often, and almost never in any helpful way. I had an ex who more or less characterized my thinking as somewhere between that of Blanche DuBois and that of Jason Vorhees -- but it would go without saying I'm not the only variable in that equation. If I'm guilty of wrongthink, I'm sure I'll pay out the nose. And don't doubt for a second that when I end up in Room 101, I'll blame only myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment