We, it appears to me, tend to propagate a wavefront, and this is not necessarily a good thing; wavefronts in general, I mean. For instance, as an aside, have you ever taken a good look at that "cheese-food" guck that comes in slices? Okay, it is wrong for "cheese" to be shiny, start there. Far worse though, you should not be able to propagate a wave front through the junk, like you would in shaking the dust off of a throw rug. But, back to our topic; we (personally) kick up a wave, and others can clearly recognize it. You, yourself only get glimpses of the thing, and that; only intermittently.
Is it that we are trying to purposely fool ourselves or others, when we deny our wavefront? You know the recipe here:" You always (or Never) say thanks, or you are so sloppy (or such a clean freak) it just drives me nuts!". At first, we would like to rebut, or correct the charges, but with some reflection and time, we usually have to admit that, "they do have a point".
Later, we begin (if you are like me) to think "Did I really imagine that the Mike-wave was "over"? Did I actually believe that "that was then", and so, the "old me" is just history (which we can safely forget)? Though there is nothing convincing about such estimates of ourselves, we favor them and duly repeat them.
We try to affix a confidence,(that just doesn't belong); one that says, "I'm over it", without admitting the distortion factor involved. Looking at yourself, small faults appear large, and huge blunders appear miniscule. And, let's not forget (again) the blindspots we bear. We bear with us, those "failures" which we will never mention to others, but if we did, nobody would care! Then, there are those deeply irritating serial flaws in us, which we ourselves never even notice! One guy I know for instance; is incapable of ever saying "thank you". It drives me nuts. Another guy was mad at me for ten years because I made up a nick-name for him, and never called him by his given name. I never knew that this bothered him...for a decade?
So, was it Socrates who said "know thyself"? What is this guy, some kind of comedian? This "advice" is guaranteed to blow up in your face. We keep getting "anti-results" (have you noticed), "small is big", and so "awful is invisible", so, is it then, "important is moot"? Does this futility bomb of ours thereby prescribe that we quit trying to analyze the wavefront which we generate? Don't be absurd!
Like a race of amnesiacs, we are all-about finding out "who we are". Numerology, handwriting, pop-psyche tests, heck, half of what we do is to help us recall who we are, and what the "wave-in question"...for ME is. So, the Mike w.i.q. is founded (I think) upon "whack". Don't ask me what exactly "whack" is, because I don't know, but it is safe to say that I am clearly "out of it." The world (and myself) are deeply flawed; really out of whack! Actually, that is unreasonably optimistic, the truth is; that I am really, really, really out of the "w" thing.
We, in the "West", I mean western civilization, not west of Memphis, have trained-up in "guilt". Especially, for us white folk, this is a good summary. Like a teeter-totter, when one goes up, the other goes down. To gather "guilt", is to forget "shame"...but we ordinarily forget that too!
For instance; in the Mike w.i.q., the contrast runs something like: "Guilt? Sure! Sign me up! I'm as guilty as the day is long. I eat that stuff for breakfast!..." but as for the corresponding shame quotient? Enter the sound of crickets. The Mike w.i.q. goes off-line here. We get this scratchy silence, and droopy shoulders? All that slouching and foot dragging is very unbecoming of me!
As a severely damaged soul, and a fundamentally flawed human, my shameful errors just do not appear to halt. This fabulous series of blunders, faux-pas', insertions of foot-in-mouth, forgetting, over-stepping, and speaking like a complete jack-ass, appear (at least) to be an infinite set! Yet, "oddly", do I ever recall that this is "me", the "real me" we mean here? Almost never, or perhaps; "Briefly, and soon to be forgotten again!".
The net result of the fiasco which I carry within, is dual. If guilt draws me "in", then shame drives me "out". By this, we infer that the Mike w.i.q. "strategy" is indeed, simple! "Distance" proves to be the key-word in this system. Please do not misunderstand (again!), by "distance;" we do not mean that anyone anywhere (including myself) is ever "aided". Heck, who thinks of stuff like that? Rather, by "distance", we refuse to (further)...harm! Was it the Hippocratic oath which says "First, do no harm"? If so, then my "hypocritical oath" reads similarly and it goes: "If the "best" I do, is produce crap...I could at-least do that across the street!". The Mike w.i.q. comes on-line, right about "here".
Not to sound like an excessively misogynistic goof, but the entire "romantic" gig ,with them zany fem-bots just made no sense to me. "Why so?"; you adroitly ask. Isn't it obvious? The Mike w.i.q. generates a shame-distance. So logic demands that if I in fact did care for the other's best interests, then I would refuse to handicap them with the weight of folly, blather, and (apparently) endless garbage I produce! Duh? Ergo: "To 'care', is to 'drive-off'...for the other's good!". Double-duh?
Honestly, I've been pretty much mystified, most of my life, just about "here". That is to say, the stunning clarity I (appear to) possess precisely "here"; (upon this topic), has never been ratified as "sane", or verified as "obvious"...by anybody else!? How weird is that? This poses the question; "Am I insane?". I certainly don't "feel" insane, but isn't that just like a lunatic to say things like that? Beats me! This just proves the point of this essay! We are really bad at estimating ourselves.
But let's just pretend that I am unhinged for a moment. If that were so, wouldn't such a thing provide even more reason to defend others by generating distance from them? So, if I am nuts, I'm being quite rational about it all!
Maintaining distance is not "fun", but it's not intended to be. What was intended; was a scheme to limit damage to others, and so if it works properly, then any consequent "pain" in my life, is a moot point. And see? I have never understood "love"...otherwise. I mean, I am unable to "fix" myself, but I AM able to not-destroy you with me! What is that; chopped liver over here? If I carried some horrid contagious disease, would it be more "loving" to mingle, and rub elbows, or go to the desert? If women just basically make me angry, confused, and prone to all sorts of hurtful talk, does "drawing close" or "putting distance between" BETTER typify concern for the other's welfare? Triple duh?
It is this stunning obviousness, just about right here, which has for most of my life befuddled me. Am I the only air-breathing carbon unit in the cosmos...who has a pair of eyes in his head? If, (and since!) I "refuse-to- harm", why is that never considered "loving"? I just do not "get" this, and frankly, very likely never shall. There is no "guarantee" that you will; "in time, mature". Time does not "heal all wounds", they just fester! You must actively forgive. The shape of the Mike w.i.q., is a "question-mark".
Sometimes, it just makes me want to fly away. Maybe outer space is less crowded? Maybe, out there I wouldn't be so destructive? I don't know. It seems to me that you cannot out run who you are. By the time you get to the "new-there", your crap has already showed up! But, if we can't out-run the wavefront we propagate, maybe we could ride it? Like a surfer on the wave of the century, we weave a path of destruction, but why couldn't we ride that path away from others! You can't quit being you, but you could AT LEAST do it "over-there"! Why is this sort of thing not-loving?
It is either that, or face being re-built, re-booted, from the ground up! What if I'm right, and the "old-me" cannot be "fixed"? Then, that would imply at minimum; a new creation wouldn't it? He says: "Behold, I make all things new"! Even my sad, stupid, sorry heart? Yes! In fact it starts there!