Generally speaking, what role do you play?

But how can it recognize you

Unless you step out into the light?

Daniel Johnston

03.24.2011

Lucas Molandes 

I get out of my head for too long sometimes and I begin to feel like a fraud when I haven’t written enough. The good thing about having done comedy for so long is that I’m aware of the ebbs and flows of creativity -- I know they’re inevitable, so I don’t get concerned when I haven’t written anything in a day or two. To pull the point of view back, there are moments of stillness in life that qualify as times of “wait and see.” These moments of downtime are necessary; they’re the moments between harvests, when the intellectual land has been leeched of it’s nutrients and is in need of experience-based replenishment. Sometimes with life you got to lay back and let the downtime happen naturally otherwise your actions are no better than ripping a square peg out of a round hole -- unless that’s your thing.

I suppose we exist in an emotional ecosystem. I’m not saying that in the sense that certain emotions have dominance over the others. I’m saying that all of the emotions are necessary to the world in which we live. If one emotion falls or dies off, the environment becomes unstable. If you try to make one emotion the focus of your existence, you’re no better than putting a hat on a polar bear and making it balance on a ball at the circus when it should be contributing to it’s natural environment. That’s somewhat how I feel about people who always tell you to “be happy” or “don’t worry your pretty little face.” They’re putting a top hat on the idea of what happiness is and making it dance for spare change. But this true of any emotion you use incorrectly.

So the idea I’ve been working towards is this: if putting an emotion into a specific role is bad, then putting a person into a specific role is an equally bad idea.

What are you to me? What am I to you? Why do I have to be defined in your mind? Why do I need to define you in my own mind? When people put you into a certain role (boss, relationship, enemy ...), they balance you on their expectations and insecurities. It seems to me, however, that to truly experience someone is to allow their existence to occur beyond your control or insecurities. Putting someone into a role in life is like making them into an emotional appliance designed to help you deal with the reality of your existence, and I don’t see how that can’t lead to letdown when they fail to meet those needs. How can your reality not be compromised when you put too much of yourself in something else?

Ideally, I want your existence to be as right for you as possible so that you can be you and I can enjoy the real you. But at some point, I’m going to expect you to be there for me in ways that may or may not be reasonable. Does someone fail me by not hugging me at the right moment, or not smiling at me at the right moment, or not including me in a conversation, or renting the wrong movie, or not getting me the right gift for my birthday? Are these petty needs, or are these needs valid in all relationships? If I speak up, am I being impatient or voicing a legitimate concern? Am I putting too much into you, or am I asking for you to meet me half-way?

Here’s where the conundrum occurs:  Why would I put anyone on hat on a polar bear and make it dance if that’s not in it’s nature? I mean, could I find fault with what someone fundamentally is if I love them? I think we have faith that people will change and grow with our changing and growing needs, but can a person I care about let me down when I’ve made peace with the fact that they are who they are in spite of me, and that’s ultimately why I cared about them in the first place? If I have the freedom to walk away at any point, then is my choosing to stay a reflection of my inability to face my reality? Can I have faith in someone else if it’s ultimately about me?

I don’t have a definitive answer to these questions. I think it’s reasonable to ask certain things of a person, but it is unreasonable to expect someone to always know what you need. But where does the line between the two rest? Where's the line between faith and entitlement?

How much does an ecosystem owe those things that enable it’s equilibrium? The answer rests within our emotional evolution and our ability to be honest with ourselves. We aren’t the same person we were 10 years ago because what we fundamentally are has been altered by the weathering we have encountered in our existence. There are times of prosperity, and times of drought. Some experiences are introduced into our lives like a creature that has no natural predators and thus depletes our reserves until almost all life dies off. Other experiences merge gracefully into our world as if they had been born out of the same set of circumstances.

I can have faith that a person I care about will merge into my world, but I also feel that the line between faith and entitlement is blurred by our ability to be honest with ourselves. My honesty is only as valid as my ability to perceive my reality. I see through the eyes of sanity that have been shaped by life. The life around me is a fabric we all exist in -- which has it's own definition of sanity. If I pull you out of that fabric into a specific role for myself, then my ability to be honest has been compromised because my reality has been altered to balance my insecurities, which is done so that I might be balanced within the current sane zeitgeist -- which may not be right for me. Etc........It’s an interesting cycle.

I think what I'm trying to say is that if you are right with yourself, then you will find what is right for you.