Moments, Liminal

I don't often read advice columns. I am fascinated by people, and their problems, and their neuroses, and so reading advice columns seems like a natural thing for me to do, but I don't often do it. I find them inherently condescending, primarily, and that makes them difficult for me to read.

It's probably a good thing that I don't read them often; as was pointed out to me recently in disparaging tones, the last thing I need is to become further steeped in pop psychology and dime-store theories. All the good intentions and compassion in the world will be for naught if I start to believe too strongly in my own cleverness.

But sometimes, the tag line is too good, too close to home, too grabbing for me to ignore. Tag lines like "Must I Choose: My Muse or My Wife?" are more or less guaranteed to get me reading.

I'm not male, and my personality is not really set up for clear-cut dichotomies, but this is a thing that I have often struggled with. I require, for better or worse, a great deal of stimulation. I need people, different people, different perspectives, new ideas. I crave them. I crave the interaction that is exchanging thoughts with someone, and I crave variety in that enterprise.

My ex-husband had a less charitable view of this desire of mine; he told me that I required a lot of attention. That is probably true, although not, I think, entirely in the way he meant it. I am not someone that requires the full attention of another person at all times. I crave copious quantities of solitude as desperately as I crave new ideas and interactions. I need time to recharge and regroup, to integrate the sum total of those new ideas gleaned from new interactions into my cosmology and adjust as necessary. But I would be lying if I said I don't enjoy the attention of the people that I love, or admire, or respect. Who doesn't enjoy attention, honestly?

But the thrust of this man's problem is that while he very much wants to be a good husband to his wife, he finds he is consistently projecting desire onto other women and using the resultant emotional reactions as inspiration. He is creating muses for himself. And he is afraid he is hurting his wife in this process.

I very much want to be a good partner, but I require a lot of stimulation. No one person is ever going to be enough for me. And that can be hurtful. Jealousy is an ugly, wily, slippery thing, and it can rear its poisonous head and kill even the heartiest love dead.

Most of the columnist's advice I found unhelpful and unnessecarily downing. But there was one line, one line in the whole response, that sent the hamsters in my brain madly turning their wheels: "I also think it might be useful for you to read the Wikipedia entry on liminality. Why do I think that? Not sure."

Read the Wikipedia entry on liminality. Don't know why, just do it. Perhaps the columnist knows more than he is telling, or perhaps he intuitively knows something he can't verbalize, or perhaps it was just a random stab in the dark because this guy really likes the concept of liminality. I don't know. But that was the best bit of advice I have ever seen in an advice column in my life.

Read the Wikipedia entry on liminality. Just do it.

A liminal moment is a threshhold, it is the state of being betwixt and between two concretely defined states. Liminal moments occur in all strata of human organization, from individuals to the world at large. The term was originally coined in 1909 by Arnold van Gennep in the classic anthropological tome Rites of Passage. I studied van Gennep; I remember being fascinated by the concept seven years ago.

Because the columnist did not see fit to elucidate his reasons for recommending reading about liminality, I can only guess what he was trying to impart. But I know, very clearly, what I got out of reminding myself about the concept of liminality.

I am spending my life searching out liminal moments. If I could, I would live entirely in the threshhold, in the state betwixt and between all definite things. It is in those moments, and that state, that creativity is most abundant. It is in those spaces where all stability and order have passed away and new orders and structures have not yet been erected that inspiration is clearest. I have spent my life, and I will continue to spend my life, seeking permanent liminality.

New people and new interactions and new ideas are merely vehicles for finding those things that force me into liminality, so that I do reorder my cosmology. All that attention is fodder for the productive use of my solitude.

Some part of me, the heedless, reckless, wild part wants to say that art is that which is a catalyst for liminal moments. Art is that which sends you careening into the space betwixt and between the ordinary structures of the world. Anything else is mere craft, no matter how well constructed.

And I want to create art. I want to live in the empty space between letters, in the pause of the comma and not in the words surrounding it.

Identity

I think I'm having an identiy crisis.

Or, I was. Maybe I still am? It's hard to tell. I'm certainly more than usually interested in certain questions that are often thought to be beastly and/or immature to expend mental energy on.

But here's what I've learned in the last four days:

I don't have to live up to anyone's expectations or ideas of good.

I mean, that should be self-evident, right? And when I say I've learned this, I don't really mean I'm ready to implement it. I will certainly still be chasing external validation for years to come.

But... when I don't get that support, that pat on the head, that "Well done!" murmured into my hair while someone wraps arms around me and holds me close, maybe I'll remember this, right now, and remember also that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. If I'm satisfied, then it's enough. Maybe I'll remember. Probably it'll take "learning" this several more times before that happens.

Which brings me to the question that I'm now wrestling with.

Am I satisfied?

No.

Why not?

I don't know. I can't separate my dissatisfaction with the ways in which I am perceived and receieved and judged and held to account from any internal dissatisfaction that may (or may not) be festering. Part of me wants to lay whatever nagging sense of "not doing good enough" I have lurking in my breast right at the feet of other people. But, that would be too easy.

We are each of us responsible for ourselves. We're responsible, ultimately, for finding our own happiness, for living our own lives, for coming to our own fulfillment. To push that task onto someone else is the height of selfishness. So, laying any dissatisfaction with my life and the things I do on someone else's shoulders, anyone else's shoulder's, is not a thing I am comfortable doing. I don't want to be that person that is selfishly putting their burdens on another.

Some part of me feels that people who love you should willingly shoulder some of that burden for you, though. Some part of me feels that loving someone is the act of attempting to ease burdens, without being asked. Pay attention, recognize need, help. That's how love behaves. Isn't it? That's how love should behave. That's how we who love should behave. But by that measure, there are strangers out there that love me more than the people I say "I love you" too, and strangers that I love more than those, since there are strangers I am more capable (and sometimes more willing) to help than my loved ones.

Perhaps it's true that familiarity breeds contempt. We can't help but start to take for granted that which we feel entitled to by virtue of some concept of love. And once we start to take actions of love for granted, they no longer seem like acts of love; they become merely what we are due, and we demand ever-greater feats of validation, of proof, of love and sacrifice to continue believing that we are loved.

It's a neverending spiral, moving up or down as you see it, positive or negative, up to the blissful heights of heavenly perfection in which we have obliterated a self for another and they have done the same and we have essentially swapped care of ourselves, or down to the depths of hellish despair where nothing is ever good enough, where nothing we give nor nothing we ever receive manages to prove that we still love.

But if familiarity breeds contempt and there's no way around it, then there's no hope for any long-term relationship. We should all wander the earth as half-strangers, helping when we think we are needed, being helped by those that think we need it, and allowing the connection to fizzle out as soon as whatever it is has passed. We should never try to develop or deepen our relationships. We should be forever generous, loving strangers to each other.

How depressing.

I don't want to live in a world of strangers! Even generous, loving ones.

So how do we continually prove that we love, and continually accept that we are loved, without starting to trod that spiralling path that leads to utter disaffection or complete loss of self? How do we tread water and still get where we want to go?

I don't know.

I would like to know, though. I would like to know how to be happy for praise, hungry for it even, without trying to curry it. I would like to know how to not feel guilty when I can't help someone that something in me whispers I ought to know how to help. I would like to not be contemptuous of the familiar comforts that were once new and fresh and perfectly capable of lifting me up.

Perhaps I haven't resolved the identity crisis yet. Perhaps if there's a solid enough sense of self, of purpose, of skill and craft and art and love, of ideas, these aren't questions that need to be asked or pondered.

So. Am I satisfied? No. And it is my responsibility to change that. But it would be good to be loved, anyway. While I do that.

Evil Exists. But.

I was raised Catholic. In many ways, I still am Catholic. It's something that will never leave me. Over the years I've gravitated towards the mystic traditions of Christianity, towards the Teresa of Avila's and the Thomas Merton's. I've found myself drawn to the notion of personal, ecstatic experience of the divine and the exhortation to "Love thy neighbor as thyself." These are the tenets of my faith. These are the central pieces.

I spend more time than most of the people I know engaged in meditation, which often makes people think I'm all Zen and stuff. I'm into balance, calm, acceptance. But I'm still Catholic.

And the thing about Catholics: We believe in evil.

We believe absolutely that evil exists. It roams the earth. The Devil is merely an anthropomorphized personification of this evil. He's a boogeyman. The evil actually exists within us, within each of us, and it is the responsibility of each of us to find that evil within ourselves and accept it, absorb it, so that we don't commit evil.

Theologically, God is our help in this endeavor. Baptism, communion, prayer, regular Mass attendance and confession are all ways in which God (through his representatives on Earth) aid us in our quest to accomplish this. We will fuck up a lot. That's why forgiveness is God's greatest gift, and such a central piece of the Catholic cosmology.

I believe in evil. I believe absolutely that evil exists in the world. I believe absolutely that it is my duty, as an aspiring moral being, to combat this evil. Because of my propensity towards mysticism, I believe that I must start with the evil within me. It's not a matter of casting it out, since such a task is impossible, but rather of absorbing it. When you are aware of the negative impulses, you can control them, and thus refrain (knowingly and purposefully) from committing evil.

To me, the "knowingly and purposefully" caveat is quite important. We can accidentally stumble into good works all the time; it doesn't take much. It is akin to what philosopers refer to as "narcissistic altruism" in which we do good things for others because we are addicted to the rush of righteousness that comes along with it. We're really doing good things for ourselves, for our own selfish reasons.

I believe in evil. I believe in true good.

But the world is not a perfect dichotomy, and there exists a whole spectrum in between evil and good.

Narcissistic altruism, for example. It's not true good. You are not being selfless; your primary concern is your self and your own feelings. But it's also not evil. It's dangerous because once you get into a pattern of doing things for the way they make you feel rather than the way they make others feel, it's hard to get out, and this prevents you from growing as a person. This prevents you from reaching stages of awareness in which you could fully embrace and therefore neutralize the evil within you.

But it's not itself evil to do good things for the wrong reasons.

Evil is far, far worse than that.

I was recently chit-chatting idly with a friend when the conversation took a turn for the serious, and this friend honestly began to put forth evidence of their own evilness. I was slightly aghast. Evil is not a joking matter, for one. I am Catholic. But also I was deeply saddened that anyone could have lived and come to the conclusion that they were evil simply because they'd made mistakes. What kind of culture do we live in that anything as human as making mistakes, even mistakes that cause pain, make one categorically evil? Evil is something I take far too seriously to classify it on par with human weakness. If human weakness were evil, there would be no salvation or comfort for any of us, and we would all be incapable of doing good as soon as we were born.

Evil is not temptation succumbed. Evil provides the temptation, and we will and do succumb. But to be an evil person, you have to look at whatever the fallout from that mistake was and not be hurt yourself by it. Evil is the inability to feel in yourself the effects of what you do.

As long as you can still feel, as long as you retain empathy, you are not an evil person, and you can grow.