Thieving Thursday: The Late Late Edition

>> Friday, May 8, 2009

I know, I know, I'm a loser. I should have done this yesterday. If all goes well, I'll put up two today and get myself out of my own black books. Oddly, I had a good candidate for this. Joel Klebanoff of Stuff and Nonsense (which is, by the way, perhaps the best name for a blog EVER) had written one of those "nonsense" type blogs, mentioning that even having no ideas would work for a blog as the lack of an idea represented an idea (OK, I'm paraphrasing rather freely; I really can't be trusted with any leash at all). Like a surprisingly large number of my blog buddies, he's Canadian, which isn't really pertinent, but is an interesting coincidence that I really have no intention of doing anything more with.

Anyway, Joel had been bemoaning his limited sex life the previous post and then mentioned, in the comment thread (which, by the way, are well worth reading) that he wasn't a fighter. So, not a lover or a fighter, is it, I asked. His response, "Yep, I barely exist. Thanks for pointing that out..."

Now, this got me to thinking. Why would someone who isn't a lover or a fighter not exist? Being a fighter, for instance, that's hardly an unmixed blessing and many a fighter is wretched to be around. As for lovers, well, there are historically any number of disgruntled wives and queens who wish the same could be said of their spouses. A number of people never married (or had notable lovers) and never fought, yet did important or notable things. Like Michaelangelo or Beethovan or Thomas Beckett.

Of course, some people confuse who they are with their professions like lawyers or accountants or rocket scientists. Of course you can be one of those things, but that doesn't, for most of us, define who we are so much as define what we do and, perhaps, some tendencies that we have or gifts.

Others confuse their roles for who they are like mother, wife, son or caregiver. Those traits, being a mother or a son might be a big part of who we are and how we go through life, but confusing yourself with a role is a good way to lose yourself in the process. Too much living for others means you've probably lost sight of yourself.

Then there are the labels people confuse others and/or themselves for. Liberal, Christian, pagan, radical, Virgo, whatever. And, although those can be reasonable descriptors for the way they think or act, that flavor the way they look at people, like the rest, the likely fall short of completely defining most.

In the end, I think, you have to leaven all the things that you do and think and feel with who you truly are and that's never no one, it's always at least yourself.


  • Roy

    Hey, I'm satisfied with "Photographer." At least it's descriptive, and I hope it's accurate. And it's evidence that I exist. "I snap, therefore I am." Works for me!

Post a Comment


Blog Makeover by LadyJava Creations