I am indebted to Nancy Scott who inspired this conversation.
It's a sentiment which always causes me to do a wryly amused double
take because when it's said, it's mostly said earnestly as
if it were
true.
Yet all it does really is
demonstrate
being unclear on the concept. It's the expression "It's the
story
of my life" - or something similar and / or compatible. The
exception I take with it is this: whatever "it" is, isn't
your life. That always seems obvious when it's distinguished
clearly
after it's said ie after the fact. Yet for the most part, we
are that our
stories
of our lives, and our lives, are one and the same. That is to say we
are that our
storiesare our lives. They're not. And the degree to which we are
that they are, is the degree to which we're not fully
alive,
and not fully
free to be and free to
act.
So when we say "It's the
story
of my life", it isn't. It's just a
story
(and the suffixed phrase "of my life" is simply gratuitous). It takes a
certain bravery ie it takes a certain guts (spontaneously,
without being confronted, prodded, reminded, or
coached
- ie purely as a
Self-driven
act)
to isolate which of the fabrics of our lives (ie those which we
erroneously consider to be the
reasons
for
why
we are the way we are), are little more than
stories
which we tell over and over and over again (to others as well as to
ourselves), preferring their timbres and righteousnesses to (in many
cases)
Life itself.
It takes a certain courage to let go of our
stories
ie to simply drop them, and to relinquish our investment in the
payoff we expect to get from telling them, and from
keeping them in existence. It takes a certain verve to see
our
stories
as a function of (and therefore as rooted in) the past, and thus devoid
of any and all
power
ie devoid of any and all juice and
creativity,
and to give them up.
Included in these past based
reasons
about
how
I got to be the way I am ie included in what I refer to as my
stories,
are both those in which I cast myself as the
victim
of the piece, as well as those in which I cast myself as the
hero
of the piece. Also included are those in which I cast myself as the
villain of the piece, as well as those in which I cast
myself as the judge and jury of the piece.
Allstories
about
how
I got to be the way I am, just like all
photographs of my face,
are of the past
(listen:
any
photograph,
given what it is, is never of the
present,
and it's never of the
future:
a
photograph
is always of the past, yes?). I can
choose
to see myself (which is to say I can
choose
to
identify
myself) as a function of everything that's happened to me in the
past ... OR ... I can
choose
to see myself as a function of being
alive,
and of what I'll
create
for the
future
(another way of saying this is I can
choose
to see myself as a function of being
alive,
and of the
future
I'll
create).
When I start looking at my life as a function of being
alive,
and as a function of the
future
I'll
create,
rather than looking at my life as a
collection
of
stories
from my past, I notice something disconcerting (it's disconcerting
because it rocks the boat ie it defies the traditional
folk lore yarns and tales which I accepted as
true,
of
how
I got to be the way I am). It's this: I'm really not a function of my
stories
at all ie I'm really not a function of my past at all. Rather, I'm a
function of my
future
and of what I'll
createnext
- which is also to say the quality of my life is a
function of my
future
and of what I'll
createnext.
Traditional folk lore yarns and tales aside, I'm not constrained by the
past I had - and, to be honest, I am (or at least I was)
heavily invested in that I'm constrained by the past I had. What's more
likely is I'm constrained by the
future
I haven't yet
created
- or (worse) I'm constrained by the
future
I don'tcreate
ie I'm constrained by (to be honest) the
future
I avoidcreating.
In this regard, my past (and my
stories
about
what happened
in the past) is so far down the list of what really
constrains me, as to merit no more
attention.
As compelling as it is, as many people who do it as there are, as much
agreement as there is for doing it as there is, living life as a
storydoesn't make any difference. It's more than merely that it
doesn't make any difference. It's that it's our being invested in, and
our being right about the
stories
of our lives, and our justifying our roles in the
stories
of our lives, which keeps us stuck. There's no
possibility
in
stories
- just as there's no
future
in
photographs.
There's no juice in them. If our
stories
were really the juice of our lives, there'd be a lot more vibrant,
expressive
faces
on the morning commuter
train,
and there'd be a lot more
eye
contact in the elevator on the way up to the office boardroom (y'all
know what I'm talking about). Yet we are that our
stories
really are the juice of our lives. It's the folly of
being human.