To speak of a matter such as guilt, if it can even first be established that such a matter is, leaves one in a very peculiar place. Being so very subjective in experience, perhaps even exquisitely so, causes any discussion of it, particularly if proceeding from any notion of its attribute-ability, extremely precarious and difficult. Assigning guilt to another, or projecting it for its reception and acceptance by that other is easily frustrated. In some way it requires a prior assumption of another projection being embraced as not only practicable in all practicality, but also as itself a true matter able to be exercised to, or of, some verity. That is the assumption that “If I were you…” can stand. But, can it?
Not unlike “If I had only known better” or “If I only knew then what I know now“, whose insertion or projection is to another time or made of us as taking our present self and “moving” it to an earlier now (which to us is a then) “If I were you…” also signals an assumption of the facility with which one can become, or be another. When looked at this way the utter frivolity and vanity of its presumption to us becomes absurd. And yet we say it, do we not?
We understand that this observation is made subject to saying “It’s just a phrase, just a play with words that are not really meant that way described” and so the conclusion of absurdity is itself absurd. Or “It’s merely another way of saying one is experiencing some regret at prior choices or motions in the lacking of a fuller informing that is now present” Or in this other case (If I were you…) one is merely saying that given the situation or circumstance expressed by one to another, one is saying “If in that same circumstance, I would do this”.
But is it not absurd? For which is the more vainly presumptive, that the one with full belly can so enter the experience of the hungry man and advise him (thinking he is no less fully understanding of that circumstance, though his belly be full) being neither pressed presently at all with the all the attendant pressing(s) that comes with starving in experience, and insert himself; or that one by simple imagining has access to all experience(s)…even or especially those he is not presently in?
Now, one could say “But I have known hunger”…(or faced such a decision, using whatever situation for example) and therefore I am equipped to make such judgments about one in such a circumstance. But that one would have to imagine that his own experience of hunger (when brought to it is carrying all his own prior experiences and knowings) and that these are all the same across the board.
But, are they?
We carry into each circumstance our own informing about that circumstance. For whom of us does not know himself as only himself, and to himself unique, even to all that has formed him/her? We cannot have it both ways, or can we? That in all our presumed uniqueness we only show that this matter, this matter of seeking to hold to all our own uniqueness is so common to each, that in that way by claiming our own uniqueness we simply show we are the most common of men? Yes, each one is unique…just like everyone else. Have I tossed some dust upon your preeminence? Sorry, but not sorry.
For we are odd in our assessments, ourselves being more of a mystery to ourselves than others mostly. For where and when we might generally look at another and think “I know why so and so did that” believing we can see motive(s), to ourselves when caught we more generally wonder “why on earth did I do that?” And so, and in that way, though we might even concede each is unique (if pressed to it) we find ourselves a little more so, having a bit more uniqueness (if you will) due to our believing we are bit more mysterious in the workings of our self.
And if we take what would appear an opposite view; that is, saying all (others) are ignorant of their own motives, but not me of mine, as in “I know why I do things”, then the moment we are pressed to admit to some fault we are doubly guilty…for we claim to do with full knowing. Is it any wonder then how this is so easily circumvented of ourselves in resistance to admission of fault? Just don’t admit to fault and the wearing of guilt (and attendant shame) never need be acknowledged nor worn. This then becomes a matter of will or wills and the why of the saying above:
Assigning guilt to another, or projecting it for its reception and acceptance by that other is easily frustrated.
Do you see how we get into trouble…even, or especially, in such matter as assigning guilt? Even to ourselves. If taking the position in regards to any bad acting we hold only others guilty of motives of all malevolence, while we let ourselves off with plea of ignorance; or conversely, find all others guilty of ignorance while holding knowing to ourselves, we are the more guilty when our own fault is found. We are so bound either way…in being guilty of carrying an unjust balance.
And if all are guilty, no doubt so is our own sense of justice skewed.
Who escapes the charge of looking with a kinder eye upon themselves than upon any other?
But why do we? How couldn’t we?
And why do you behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye but do not see the beam that is in your own?
israelx7wordpresscom 