Are you alone?

[modest mouse]

"Once you have realized that there is no objective external world to be found, that what you know is only a filtered and processed version, then it is a short step to the thought that, in that case, other people, too, are nothing but a processed shadow, and but a short step more to the belief that every person must somehow be shut away, isolated behind their own unreliable sensory apparatus. And then the thought springs easily to mind that man is, fundamentally, alone. That the world is made up of disconnected consciousness, each isolated within the illusion created by its own senses, floating in a featurless vacuum"

~ Peter Hoeg
From the novel Borderliners



Are we alone?

Not a particularly new thought or question. One which most of us have addressed at one point or another.

This passage stuck out because it is buried in a semi-autobiographical novel by Mr. Hoeg (My favorite Danish novelist and one of the few authors I read through translation). It arises in the context of Hoeg looking back on his childhood and discussin a German theorist/reasercher's take on life and the accompanying experinces.

To my mind, an unpretentious way of saying what some have used voluminous works to flesh out.

I, in fact, think we are alone. That that inner monologue that is inherent to who we are is isolated. It exists with influences from others, form places, from events... but is in fact never communicated fully with any other person. That much is obvious.

That is not to say that there is a magical quality to such an existence, there is not. Being human doesn't entitle us to a world of deep meaning and special care. Sure, people are unique, but even the most different of us remains but a bit changed from any other.

At the end of the day when your head is on the pillow. Those thoughts, whether your lover or child or dog is close, are your existence. The exposure and dissection of them with others (Humans are in fact primates, the most social of creatures) is not without merit and the crux of life at times but in no way complete. It should not be complete, in my opinion.

 

[modest mouse]

continuing the thought as I posted prematurely, damn viagra

What is reality?

The best description is the 'collective hunch'.

Nothing more.

Our perceptions and the following ideas and actions exist in what realm? Is the hair on the back of her neck truly that soft against my cheek?

Each of our experiences is unique, as opposed to what lies below the surface. As the world of the blind or deaf is altered, to a lesser degree each of us is influence by our senses and their flaws and limitations. The power of what ends up registering as opposed to this 'reality' is under recognized.

One can get to some odd places when perceptions are altered. Sleep deprivation, drugs, adrenaline, emotion. Those altered realities are no more or less intrinsic to our humanity than any other.

Circling back: The vox inside may not be unigue but I would suggst that the filters inherent in the systems are diverse.

 

[BustyTheClown]

Wow, what an incredible post and thread. Great job on starting it. You raise some excellent questions, and I'd agree with the way you answer them. We all have our own separate consciousness, and we can never fully share our experiences withint that consciousness (i.e., deep inner thoughts and monologues, etc.) with other people. You said that we could/should never dissect these consciousnesses completely with others, and I couldn't agree more. First of all, I don't think it's possible to pick apart your brain with someone else and have them fully understand it, even if you could do it. Secondly, if we were able to share our consciousness with others and influence them with it, would we truly be ourselves anymore? Could that lead to a society where everyone is aware of how everyone else thinks, which (in my opinion) would gradually evolve into a society where everyone starts thinking that way; in all, we would cease to have individuality.

I guess we need this "aloneness" that you and Hoeg describe so eloquently in order to maintain our individuality. Some people may think we aren't really individuals, but if you look at people from the perspective of their consciousness (and/or subconsciousness), we truly are separate -- even if only a little bit so. It seems grim thinking about it at the surface level, but the more I contemplate the question, the more satisfied I am with the viewpoint.

Your post, just like your av, is a gem. Thanks.

 

[erosman]

Gee, MM

When I start thinking like this, yes, I usually am alone...and I might add, it is at that point, that what I probably need most is a good fuck.


Nothing like real, physical stimuli to smooth out those philosophical, bathtub-draining vortexes. Perhaps the greatest part of thought, is to relate it...to connect the dots. Is alone-ness any more, or less real than connected-ness?

 

[cymbidia]

"Altered reality" becomes an interesting concept in light of the above assertions, does it not?

What can it mean, "altered reality", if all that we see/hear/need/want/say/desire/fear/loathe is unique to each of us individually? Can we ever really share our vision of any part of our existence, our reality, with another person or are we all abstract artists, painting the canvasses of our lives in a way that will always be somewhat incomprehensible to the others against whom our lives brush?

For what it's worth, and i've posted on this a few times before, i think we're all individuals, alone and forever apart from others of our species, but driven by genetic impulses to try to create order and harmony from the chaos of our individual and singular existence.

I think we instinctually seek the comfort of others to keep at bay the howling sucking winds of our aloneness. Throughout our lives, we grasp toward others with greedy, needy fingers like children; "she's MY friend - not yours! You get away!"

We live our lives in solitary confinement but we do it in a social manner. We have concentric rings of people peopling our lives. Those inhabiting the closest ring are the fewest in number, and it is those to whom we give our most profound reality, including our fears and tenderest dreams. As the rings of people spread from our center (and we are all the center of our own private universe), they become more populous but with people who "know" us in a less and less intimate manner.

When it all comes down to it, though, even from inside the middle of a seemingly permanent couple-relationship, each of us is alone.

In the middle of night, when racial memories of the long dark years of tending campfires to ward off the evils of the night seem somehow much closer, then we know it's just us and our thoughts that really exist. All else is constructed from the depths of our need to deny that fact.

 

[lisalove]

One is all, all is one. I believe that the individual mirrors the collective and vice-versa. Very interesting thoughts you've brought up (and busty)...Even though we are part of the whole, the fragments which make up our individual selves are so unique and really fascinating to ponder. Are we all experiencing the same reality, but merely our perception of it is different from one another?

 

[BustyTheClown]

cymbidia

All I can say is "wow."

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I was at a party last night. I brought two cases of beer to the party. I didn't drink more than 6 or 8, but all my beer was gone. Ergo, I was not alone.

 

[erosman]

Islands have no movement, but humans do. I'm not sure that the objective is as much connection or sympathy, as it is convergence... and with timing be another dimension to the experience. This thread is a great example. None of the posts unifies or marries us completely, but within the converging expressions comes an intimacy that is completely individual to each connection...each relational synapse. Aloneness can be a perspective that we dwell on between those converging moments.



I still think the solution is a good fuck

 

[modest mouse]

Excellent post, bringing some coherence to mine.

Secondly, if we were able to share our consciousness with others and influence them with it, would we truly be ourselves anymore? Could that lead to a society where everyone is aware of how everyone else thinks, which (in my opinion) would gradually evolve into a society where everyone starts thinking that way; in all, we would cease to have individuality.

THat is one of the associated questions. What is the result of not being privy to the inner monlogue of others. I tend to agree with your concern that this 'isolation' is necessary to provide for an internal identity and thus some degree of individuality.

Homogenization has become more prevalent over time (evolution demands as much until a 'shake up'). As you have hinted at, people would be much less adventurous in their actiosn and ideas if they were aware of the 'realities' of others. Much int he same way that most of the world's great artistic achievments have been produced at a time, by a person who was isolated to some extent. On a smaller scale, the isolation of onesef's own mind/emotion provides the ability to venture into new spaces.

It seems grim thinking about it at the surface level, but the more I contemplate the question, the more satisfied I am with the viewpoint.

Superficially it may seem grim, but in truth I find it liberating and empowering.

 

[modest mouse]

Re: Gee, MM

...what I probably need most is a good fuck.

In my case this goes without saying.

Is alone-ness any more, or less real than connected-ness?

My contention is that it is more real. Only because there are less filters and thus may be more genuine. Not more important, but certainly more personal and thus more 'real'. (As real is, as the thread is focused on, a result of perceptions)

 

[cymbidia]

I was at a party last night. I brought two cases of beer to the party. I didn't drink more than 6 or 8, but all my beer was gone. Ergo, I was not alone.

Physically sharing a space with others and an emotional connectedness aren't one and the same, Hamlet, as well you know.

I maintain that at our core, each of us is alone - and that despite the missing case and half of beer in each of our lives.

Edited to add:

Islands have no movement, but humans do.

I beg to differ, erosman. Islands move, they just do it in a time frame that seems almost unmoving to us, alotted only a hasty frenzied short handful of years.

How do you think the Himalayas came to be? Or Hawai'i? Has the Ithsmus of Panama always been there, a land bridge between two of the great continents? Have any of the continents, including Antacrtica, always been where they are today? No, of course not.

Ergo: islands move.

 

[modest mouse]

What can it mean, "altered reality", if all that we see/hear/need/want/say/desire/fear/loathe is unique to each of us individually?

One of the issues is how unique are we? I have never bought into the romanticized few of the individual. While I assert their are singular qualities to our perceptions due to physical characteristics as well as the details and 'flaws' in our connections to an outside world... there is an overwhelming similarity to the worlds of each of us. What is different sticks out, is more easily recognized and savoured but our humanity may be mothing more than the common elements in our lives.

This 'wonder' of being alive and human may be nothing more than a set of default responses due to similat internal architecture.

When it all comes down to it, though, even from inside the middle of a seemingly permanent couple-relationship, each of us is alone.

And does that frighten you or does the recognition come as a fresh wind? The reaction to such a fact has much to show us about what our needs and desires are and how in control we are of ourselves. As you said above, how much is masked by 'social context'.

 

[lisalove]

I maintain that at our core, each of us is alone -

I think it is somewhere in between our core and the surface where we are alone. The core of us all is connected to God, the universe whatever, and the surface is social/family. I see what your saying, but I truly believe we are more connected as one than we think or know.

 

[modest mouse]

Are we all experiencing the same reality, but merely our perception of it is different from one another?

There is no reality. The notion of a collective hunch is my only explanation. What 'reality' we perceive is the similar, common points of our perceptions. The sky is blue because our nerves tell us so. THos with a different retina structure have a different reality.

Very few perceptions are solid, that is absolute. While all of us may agree that the sky is blue, somewhere someone feels and knows differently. They see soemthing different. Is my blue the same shade as yours? When we discuss the color and view a paint chart are our minds registering the same response? No.

Reality is a construct. Our perceptions are our reality for they are all that we have to judge its existence(or lack therof).

 

[modest mouse]

Islands have no movement, but humans do. I'm not sure that the objective is as much connection or sympathy, as it is convergence... and with timing be another dimension to the experience. This thread is a great example. None of the posts unifies or marries us completely, but within the converging expressions comes an intimacy that is completely individual to each connection...each relational synapse. Aloneness can be a perspective that we dwell on between those converging moments.

I boil this down to what is common determines our sense of reality and existence and what it is to be human.

Cym brought up circles which is a ready example in so much as the circles do not lay upon each other but the overlap is anillustration of reality. While each of us does in no way overlap with every other, there are a set of areas that most have covered and in that area lies reality.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, we are alone.

Empirical proof:

You are talking about something that I've "known" for many years. If we had any connection at all, you would have "known" also and had no reason to talk about it.

Ishmael

 

[lisalove]

Reality is a construct. Our perceptions are our reality for they are all that we have to judge its existence(or lack therof).

Exactly...I've often thought about people who are labelled/diagnosed as mentally ill (particularly schizophrenics or manic/depressives)...often they are highly creative even brilliant and yet our society deems them potentially dangerous because they do not conform to the reality of the masses. And so we medicate them to try and alter their perception to fit the norm.

 

[MissTaken]

No man is an island?

However, we may all be a lone rock haphazardly placed on that island.

We are alone. There is no way that I can bring anyone into my stream of conciousness. I cannot share what has made me who I am, think as I do or have the preferences I do.

No one can share "me" in my entirity. *word?*

However, one may touch and find a kinship or connection with pieces of my "self." Shared experiences will further bring another into "me."

Never....can my entire self become part of someone or anything else.

 

[erosman]

I beg to differ, erosman. Islands move, they just do it in a time frame that seems almost unmoving to us, alotted only a hasty frenzied short handful of years.

How do you think the Himalayas came to be? Or Hawai'i? Has the Ithsmus of Panama always been there, a land bridge between two of the great continents? Have any of the continents, including Antacrtica, always been where they are today? No, of course not.

Ergo: islands move.

True, there is apparent movement, but all that you listed is divergent movement. One of the greatest aspects of the human experience is the opportunity to generate - or create, if you will - a tide of inertia to cause our paths to converge. Solitude and isolation are real, but just as real, are the connective moments that counter them.

Perhaps solitude is the backdrop or canvas where our relational brushstrokes come to life. Some perhaps see the blank canvas with distorted images, others find the image so captivating as to never notice the lonely canvas. Loneliness, like pain, can be a wonderful teacher and appetizer. If however it dominates the main course, the beauty of life - and appetite for it - are eroded into vain analysis.

 

[modest mouse]

You are talking about something that I've "known" for many years. If we had any connection at all, you would have "known" also and had no reason to talk about it.

There is an obvious quality to the discussion but knowing something does in no way mean it is not worth discussing. All of my opinons are known to me to be the truth but they do not get locked away like the acid washed jeans in the closets of hair metal bands.

My assumption is that most are aware of this alone quality but its actual recogniton is something else entirely. What reaction such recognition brings about illuminates the nature of the beast.

 

[erosman]

Never....can my entire self become part of someone or anything else.

I agree, MissT. I often have believed that total intimate fusion is the goal. Time has shown me that it isn't even an option. Our paths cross, and momentary bytes of information and experience are shared. To wish for more, is to empower the loneliness to darken the beauty with discontent.

Undoubtedly we are separate individuals, but fortunately we have the choice to steer our course...cultivate our memories...affect our dispositions, and then revel in the connected opportunities. Perhaps loneliness is not a destination as much as a catalyst...for me.

 

[MissTaken]

Erosman:

Being alone and being lonely are two separate issues.

Also, to further expand upon your "fusion" theory.

I believe that we are not meant to be alone. That we are to find, have and maintain that partner who fits as a puzzle piece.

Two halves, making the whole.

I am fucking maudlin today.

Grrrr

 

[Rambling Rose]

I know I should scuttle out of here feeling enlightened, but you guys are bringing me down.

*poof* I'm outa here!

 

[Ishmael]

I believe that we are not meant to be alone. That we are to find, have and maintain that partner who fits as a puzzle piece.

Two halves, making the whole.

there ya go.

Ishmael