No. III.22
The birth of our second child is one, maybe two weeks away. The coming event looms over us, the way a big wave looms over a little boat; and our days are dimmed by its shadow. The future can exert this force upon us, can totally suck the juice out of the present, turning it into something tense, dry, useless to memory. How can we enjoy or profit from such a transitional state? The practical answer is "Don't sit and wait; prepare." The subtler answer is that no period in life is more or less transitional than any other, had we only the power to understand each.
Robert Grudin
Time and the Art of Living
I have experienced those times when some future event caused me considerable distress which distracted me and resulted in a blank period in which nothing seemed to happen until that event occurred and I was then able to take action.
However, I have to disagree with him on one point. There are periods in which significant changes occur, and there are those periods that are quiet and life will go on as usual. This isn't to say that there are the unexpected occurrences that can happen during periods of change or during relatively static periods which can bring about changes in a person's life.
His statement regarding the "subtle answer" suggests that he is able to detect influences or trends which the rest of us are too dense to notice.
it seems like Grudin is describing anxiety... for which there are many ameliorations from psychologists, priests, zen masters, etc. it can wreck a person's well-being, i know, having fought it myself upon numerous occasions...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
DeleteYes, I would agree that what Grudin describes is anxiety, which I suspect most of us have experienced at one time or another and in varying degrees.
It can spoil the present.
I agree with Muddle. Anxiety seems the proper term for what is described.
ReplyDeleteI find Grudin's description of it very realistic. For me. it captures the feel of such periods.
Brian Joseph,
DeleteYes, it certainly seems to be what we would call anxiety, and I also think his description is accurate.
R.T.,
ReplyDeleteYes, that last sentence is where I part company with Grudin. It's claims like his that give universal statements a bad rep. Some transitional periods are heartbreaking and almost paralyzing while others are barely noticed.
RT: would that we could in actuality discover the magic source of a glacial calm that would enable us to face the trials of existence with aplomb...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteI think you hit it right--magic.
Also, that "glacial calm" sounds frightening to me. It could become addictive and prevent all emotions, even the good ones.
robot-like, as it were; can Voltaire be right? everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds...?
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteThere is only one way I can rationalize Voltaire's words and that is to think that as bad as what happened was, it could have been worse.
For example, 50 people were killed by a suicide bomber, but that's not so bad when one considers that 100 people were there and could have been killed. Therefore, this is the best . . .
However, I can't buy that sort of reasoning for it is horrific that someone would kill 50 people. I care more for what did happen than what could have happened.
the impression i got after reading "Candide" was that V was being sarcastic in light of all the horrible things that happened to C... and that he really did feel humans were a ghastly racel in every sense of the word... at one point he was beaten up in the street by some toughs hired by an enemy; i don't remember whether C was written before or after that episode. but some time soon after he left France and went to live in Switzerland... all the episodes with Frederic the Great happened later. V was a flute player, by the way; F was a musician also...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteSarcastic. Were you suggesting that Voltaire was right even though he was being sarcastic?
fred: i'm not sure what you're asking... a sarcasm(you know this, i'm just clarifying) is a statement of truth, but meant to impart the opposite, as in, "oh yeah, sure" which says the previous statement was correct but implying that it wasn't... so V was indicting human reality by saying how wonderful it was even though C's experiences were beyond awful; he was a notoriously bitter individual, who published many bitter and accusatory screeds and managed to make himself catastrophically unpopular...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle.
ReplyDeleteYou define sarcasm as meaning the opposite of what one is saying--identified by tone, body language, etc. You then say Voltaire was being sarcastic when he mentioned the best of all possible worlds, and meant the opposite. Yet in a previous message you said, and I quote, "can Voltaire be right? everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds...?"
My response to this was "Were you suggesting that Voltaire was right even though he was being sarcastic?"
I don't see the problem for I was simply asking if you thought Voltaire was right, even though he was being sarcastic.
yup; a mixed message there; that occurs occasionally when my brain gets ahead of my fingers... if i was perfect, i wouldn't be me...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle,
ReplyDeleteTrue, too sadly true. If any of us were perfect, none of us would be us.