Saturation
Ok, so here is an attempt to expand on that vaporware post below. Of course, it is almost 1am, so I'm not sure I am in any better shape to talk about it now than I was then.
I have been thinking of what kind of blog entries are "better" to write. Now, better here is a relative term because the whole point of this blog is my personal catharsis and what gives me ease fluctuates daily. Yet, as always, there is an urge to be a good host.
For me there are two options for blog entries: stories and parables. How do I make a distinction? Stories are simple retellings of an event -- I had a breakfast bar, put up a door, soaked in the tub, built a snowman, etc... Parables, on the other hand, are inspired by reality but seek a lesson to be learned -- the more universal the better. Many of my parables on this blog have been about hope (from looking for fireworks on a car-ride home to learning of the recurrence of my mother's cancer).
For a while the preference was clear: parables all the way! Stories suck! What use is a reflection space if it is focused on the mundane? Pass up the minutae of our days and strike at the meat of the experience! Upon reflection this left me with two problems:
1. It is hard, sometimes, to translate my daily minutae into philosophical truth.
2. Sometimes the parabalizing of a story makes it lose real meaning.
Ok, 1 is easy. I ate toast today. If you can make that a life lesson you are a better person than I. But 2...
How could parabalizing a story make it lose meaning? Relevance? Isn't parabalizing a story boiling it down to its universal essence? Its most direct lesson learned? Absolutely! And it is the boiling down to a universal point that discards so much information.
How does that help you, the dedicated blogging reader, know me better? How does that help the future Ed look back on these archives and measure how far he has (or has not) progressed? Example? Of course...
A few posts ago I spoke about the struggle between whether my cluttered house reflected a cluttered spirit. It was a decent parable, as parables go, I suppose. Now, imagine that same blog entry had been written both by Felix Unger and Oscar Madisson (*sigh*... go ahead and google... I'll wait.... darn younguns....). Your impression of the parable, and its chronicler, would be pretty radically different depending on who wrote it. Why? Because for one person the parable would be an understatement, and for the other it would be an overstatement.
When two people are completely saturated by an event they may relate it in very similar ways, in very similar terms. What differentiates those two people is just what it took to saturate them in the first place. That is the problem I see with all parables I read in blogs, mine included. This boiling down to essence... was it a mountain or a molehill that was boiled down? Did the person lose a limb or just get a paper-cut?
All of which makes me question the honesty of what I post and what I read. Comparing or relating to others' experiences (or my own past experiences) becomes impossible at the "parable" level, because such posts are only inspired by reality. There is no way to apply the "lost-limb or paper-cut" test. A such, I find myself questioning my own sincerity (which, to quote Jane, damages my calm) as I lack the ability to see if I am over or under reacting.
So, such was my ponderance on mental saturation... what causes us to reach our limit... losing a limb or getting a paper cut and how do we tell the difference.
---
Now, the above is a parable. The stories behind it are numerous, and there is a little reality from many parts of my life in there. Often times, people call me up with a parable and I use my knowledge of what it takes to saturate them to reverse engineer the story. I think it is something we all do. If one person calls and says the sky is falling, we roll our eyes and find out what inconvenience happened. If someone else calls and says the sky is falling, we prepare for World War III.
ps. wow. I can't believe you read all the way down to here. I owe you a cookie.
I have been thinking of what kind of blog entries are "better" to write. Now, better here is a relative term because the whole point of this blog is my personal catharsis and what gives me ease fluctuates daily. Yet, as always, there is an urge to be a good host.
For me there are two options for blog entries: stories and parables. How do I make a distinction? Stories are simple retellings of an event -- I had a breakfast bar, put up a door, soaked in the tub, built a snowman, etc... Parables, on the other hand, are inspired by reality but seek a lesson to be learned -- the more universal the better. Many of my parables on this blog have been about hope (from looking for fireworks on a car-ride home to learning of the recurrence of my mother's cancer).
For a while the preference was clear: parables all the way! Stories suck! What use is a reflection space if it is focused on the mundane? Pass up the minutae of our days and strike at the meat of the experience! Upon reflection this left me with two problems:
1. It is hard, sometimes, to translate my daily minutae into philosophical truth.
2. Sometimes the parabalizing of a story makes it lose real meaning.
Ok, 1 is easy. I ate toast today. If you can make that a life lesson you are a better person than I. But 2...
How could parabalizing a story make it lose meaning? Relevance? Isn't parabalizing a story boiling it down to its universal essence? Its most direct lesson learned? Absolutely! And it is the boiling down to a universal point that discards so much information.
How does that help you, the dedicated blogging reader, know me better? How does that help the future Ed look back on these archives and measure how far he has (or has not) progressed? Example? Of course...
A few posts ago I spoke about the struggle between whether my cluttered house reflected a cluttered spirit. It was a decent parable, as parables go, I suppose. Now, imagine that same blog entry had been written both by Felix Unger and Oscar Madisson (*sigh*... go ahead and google... I'll wait.... darn younguns....). Your impression of the parable, and its chronicler, would be pretty radically different depending on who wrote it. Why? Because for one person the parable would be an understatement, and for the other it would be an overstatement.
When two people are completely saturated by an event they may relate it in very similar ways, in very similar terms. What differentiates those two people is just what it took to saturate them in the first place. That is the problem I see with all parables I read in blogs, mine included. This boiling down to essence... was it a mountain or a molehill that was boiled down? Did the person lose a limb or just get a paper-cut?
All of which makes me question the honesty of what I post and what I read. Comparing or relating to others' experiences (or my own past experiences) becomes impossible at the "parable" level, because such posts are only inspired by reality. There is no way to apply the "lost-limb or paper-cut" test. A such, I find myself questioning my own sincerity (which, to quote Jane, damages my calm) as I lack the ability to see if I am over or under reacting.
So, such was my ponderance on mental saturation... what causes us to reach our limit... losing a limb or getting a paper cut and how do we tell the difference.
---
Now, the above is a parable. The stories behind it are numerous, and there is a little reality from many parts of my life in there. Often times, people call me up with a parable and I use my knowledge of what it takes to saturate them to reverse engineer the story. I think it is something we all do. If one person calls and says the sky is falling, we roll our eyes and find out what inconvenience happened. If someone else calls and says the sky is falling, we prepare for World War III.
ps. wow. I can't believe you read all the way down to here. I owe you a cookie.
posted by Ed at 12:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home