In more than five-and-a-half years of weekly written thought, it has seldom reflected strictly selfish personal concerns outside of a larger context. And this week I believe I will build to a larger context before I am through, but I will first begin with selfish concerns.
It is early Monday morning, and in an hour-and-a-half I will be checking in at the hospital for a heart catheterization. It will be my sixth cath over the past 7 years. I have been experiencing abnormal chest pain since before Christmas, and it has been increasing in frequency and intensity over the past 4 to 6 weeks. Last week my Wife caught me grimacing and involuntarily clutching my chest, and now here I am. I don't know if they will be adding to my collection of 7 stents, (or if they will be able to), or if the answer and resolution will involve a new experience, or if they will send me home because I am jumping the gun on an issue that is not fully manifested.
I am a bit anxious, and I believe (admittedly or not) that there is always some fear that accompanies uncertainty, but I am, for the most part, calm. For 7 years I have considered the import of my mortality, so in this regard today is merely a magnification.
We will see what comes...
... ... ... ... ...
It is Wednesday morning and after heart cath #6 and heart cath #7, I will be going home today. And in addition to Stent #8, here is what I am taking home:
It is difficult to consistently differentiate me as thinker and me as object. It is difficult for me to even consistently explain this difference because as object I am also thinker. These last 48 hours in the hospital have illustrated this dichotomy between thinker and object in a starkly fundamental way; most especially while on the table in the cath lab. In this circumstantial microcosm as presented, I am simultaneously a cold, shivering bundle of exposed disquietude, and a pulsating, trembling mass of imperfect vitality; an observer of bright lights and technological wizardry, and a clogged artery; a receptor of painful stimuli, and a carefully threaded catheter; an audience for the purposeful buzz of a sterile environment, and a shaved groin. As a thinker I perceive; as an object I am perceived. As a thinker I reach out. As an object I pull in. As a thinker I interpret. As an object I am interpreted. As a thinker I choose and act. As an object I repudiate and react.
I will never be a thinker outside of circumstance. And I should never think exclusively as object. To think exclusively as object would result in ingenuousness; (I would be an actor seeking good reviews).
Either way, (as thinker or object), I will never think outside of a context. Some may argue that Pure Thought is possible. I do not, (at least in this moment), agree. I can add complexity to my awareness of these roles by also recognizing others as objects within the context of my perception, and again as thinkers within the context of their circumstance; and additionally as objects once-removed upon their realization that they are object as perceived and interpreted by me. This relationship can be further removed if my perception of another is influenced or determined by the interpretation of yet another.
So in this regard, perhaps all thought must be, (at least to some degree), selfish thought. Am I more selfish as thinker? Or as object? To better clarify this question, I suppose we need to add another complexity to differentiate 1) me-as-object from 2) you-as-object. When I consider you-as-object, I am turning me-as-object inside out in that I am unable to see you as you see yourself seen. In other words, you-as-object will never attain the visceral resonance of me-as-thinker or me-as-object. From my perspective, I believe, (for the moment), that to consider me-as-thinker and you-as-object has more potential for conscious, productive Good than does my consideration of me-as-object. Instead of an extension of thought, (as we see in me-as-thinker and you-as-object), me-as-object involves a ricocheting cavalcade of thought that is typically less relevant and less productive. Yet often, once started, this me-as-object anguish compels or requires continued consideration of this me-as-object perplexity.
Because all three thinker-object dynamics discussed so far are unavoidable, I believe this differentiation and awareness will work toward productive Good. But what about the fourth thinker-object dynamic? What about you-as-thinker?
... ...After some thought, I believe that consideration for you-as-thinker comes after, (but ideally immediately after), consideration for you-as-object. This accompanying consideration is the determinant for either a) the potential for productive Good or b) the lack of productive Good, to be found within and beyond my consideration for you-as-object. When present, consideration for you-as-thinker manifests as a progression along a spectrum beginning with respect and moving through compassion, friendship, a depth of personal caring, and love, potentially leading to productive Good. If consideration for you-as-thinker is not present, obviously respect for the individual is also absent, and productive Good is unlikely.
And with this fourth thinker-object dynamic, (which is in actuality #3A), I can also clear up a nagging inconsistency. As my thought has unfolded, it has bothered me that me-as-object was not more obviously shunned for the seeming desire to be objectified by others. I see now that when I work to see me as others see me I also see me-as-thinker as part of the package; and so I automatically believe that others also see the whole package of #3 (me-as-object) and #3A (me-as-thinker), and consequently afford me all deserved respect; (and therein lies ego). More often than not, this is not the case. Another, considering me-as-object, (which remember, from their perspective, is you-as-object), is very possibly blind to me-as-thinker, (which again, from their perspective, is you-as-thinker). And still others, who may not be blind, see me-as-thinker/you-as-thinker, and either surgically or violently lop it off, leaving only me-as-object/you-as-object. I would do well to consistently acknowledge this reality.
It would be difficult to go through one's day with no consideration for you-as-object, yet I believe it rare that any one of us go through a day without multiple encounters lacking consideration for you-as-thinker. And in the other direction, (pulling in instead of reaching out), I believe it rare that any one of us will go through a day without multiple occasions of consideration for me-as-object (presuming the inclusion of me-as-thinker). I believe it is the degree of this directional disparity that ultimately defines selfishness.
This week my me-as-object time has dwarfed my me-as-thinker and you-as-object time, combined. This week I was an actor playing a part. This week I was selfish.
This week I let you-as-thinker down.
This week I let me-as-thinker down.
Having learned from the past, I will live in the moment, for the future.