two lives, two views

yesterday I was talking with the person who has known me longest (TPWHKML) in my life and still checks up on me regularly (as opposed to a couple of friends from Uni who send birthday and xmas cards and with whom I have the occasional telephone conversation and email exchange; my brothers, one older one younger, who don't bother with any kind of contact - the elder one living in Australia and the younger one in Kuwait - not that that's any kind of excuse in these times of virtual contact; and my father, who I have seen once in the last eight years, even tho he only lives twenty minutes away)

part of our conversation was about a conversation I had in 1986 in The Tate about Turner - the occasion and details of which I could not remember; obviously twenty two years ago it was The Tate, now it's Tate Britain, as opposed to Tate Modern, or Tate St Ives, or the other one. . .

this morning, as I looked downstream in an easterly direction, almost directly into the still low morning sunshine that blurs details and renders all colour to almost nothing in its brightness, I was thinking about Turner and the light on the Thames

and that made me think about how XCH currently lives, effectively, on a glass magic carpet, which is floating high up in the sky with marvellous views but is not grounded in reality, altho obviously it is his current reality; and this struck me as odd because WPIHL had once told him that he was "Perimeter Man" - sitting on the fences on the edges of other people's lives and occasionally joining in the party. . .

I used to organise parties - really good ones

my WWW and XCH both observed - at different times - that XCH was the foundation of my life, and this in turn led me to think this morning about TPWHKML and what roles this person plays

possibly a much needed set of supporting joists in the framework of my building

and all that made me think about how when XCH left, I suffered a degree of subsidence - and consequently my framework required underpinning; altho its foundations had been eroded and the structure slipped, the framework was still there; and that in turn made me consider why I'm a building on a "foundation", but XCH had a "perimeter" existance and thus now without what was a huge part of what was within that perimeter, is he still a perimeter? the very knowledgable and wordly wise Gordie once pointed out that XCH and I and the children will always be a family, even if we don't live under the same roof - so maybe part of XCH still perimeters that boundary (if I can use a noun as a verb). . .

and perhaps he will always be part of my foundation

as TPWHKML will always be part of my structure

and people who one meets along the way, firstly as beautiful additions to one's "home" (where the heart is) so to speak, gradually become part of one's structure as well

I know I'm rambling and I know dave won't understand this (and he'll only blame the drugs anyhow) and maybe you don't either, but it is what I was thinking about this morning as I watched the sunshine flood the river valley as the tide went out

13 comments:

Dave said...

Why on earth wouldn't I understand this?

I think I did.

'Underpinning' sounded a bit rude though.

Mel said...

<---Purposes to make honesty the foundation in her life today.

Only cuz I know too well what happens when I make human beings the foundation of my life.
I think I've learned an invaluable lesson about just how 'unfair' that is to me and them?

That being said, cuz I sometimes like to lie.....LOL.....my foundation could use a bit of repair work.

And what a beautiful picture you painted in my head of that flooding sunshine. *happy sigh*

TPWHKYL said...

Congratulations, you get a Googlewhack for TPWHKML ...

... but who or what is WPIHL? (I assume not the West Pennsylvania Ice Hockey League ...)

craig andrew said...

C:) It all depends on what kind of perimeter and what kind of foundation we are talking about. Is it the kind of perimeter designed to protect? or just define. Because the former is outdated and the later is not very well understood yet; and people so very often start off trying to simply define, then fall from insecurity into protecting. (This history of America is a good example of that, but I know you don't do politics.)

Have a nice day!!
C:)

I, still, ♥ the views said...

dave I'm shocked

on two counts

firstly that you understand what I'm talking about, and secondly that you read something rude into my words. . .

;-)


mel I never intended to have another person as my foundation, and don't know if it is "true" anyhow - I think WWW's point at the time was about co-dependency. . .

%-(

glad you liked the view of the river tho! it was truly beautiful. . .

:-D


tpwhkml I get lots of those. . . (now you have me singing a Cliff Richard song, blast)

no, nothing to do with sports: Wise Person In His Life

:-)


craig well, these "definitions" were not mine. . .

my understanding of the "perimeter" reference was that it was about being in a place of observing and watching and choosing whether to participate or not, rarely initiating; more of a narrow boundary of activity, a zone of operation, than something put up to protect another. . .

my understanding of "foundation" was that which I described in the piece of writing - without this foundation I would slip or crumble. . . but with it I could stand firm and function in whatever way I chose because it did not limit me in anyway

my understanding might not be fully correct

I don't "do" politics because I have a rubbish memory for facts and history, but I do have political views (which must be obvious!)

you have a nice day too

XX

007and a half said...

What a lovely, uplifting post :-) I don't usually understand metaphors (being very literal and having a small brain - well, not literally small, just metaphorically) but I like yours :-)

I am back to the world of spying tomorrow so will be to busy to read blogs again for a month or two until the Brazilian 23 year old would-be model au pair starts :-) (50kg, 1.74m, hobbies: modelling). So I wish you well. xx

craig andrew said...

C:) I agree with your understanding, just doing it from a traditional male perspective. As you know, I just had dinner with an old friend who is, I would guess, a lot like your XCH; very successful executive type. And I see in him (as well as a part of me) that need to be removed and "strong" that keeps him from letting go and allowing himself to be INCLUDED in his family. So, he ends up being the executive; sitting to the side and just making decisions. Which starts as a desire to define but ends, as a result of boundaries changing, as a reflex to protect... like the lonely sentry standing out in the cold, guarding against nothing.

But, then this could all just be ramble... C:)

I, still, ♥ the views said...

see, that's what I forget when I talk to my friends

(and has proven many a time to be my downfall)

I see friends as friends, mates, buddies (and yes, I'm including you in all categories!) rather than men/women

so I totally forgot that you had an XY perspective on this, as I forgot that mine might be an XX

(ah! that extra half chromosome, eh)(*winks*)

and I so don't want to think of you (even part of you) as a lonely sentry standing out in the cold, guarding against nothing (just as I didn't want that for XCH and tried my damnest for two years - bah - you can't change other people, can you? I know that now)(what was that thing Tolstoy said? I keep seeing it: everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself)(I assume it works for herself too)

dunno what I'm trying to say here, other than I forget I'm a woman with a woman's view, sometimes, it's interesting to get a male perspective - so thank you for pointing that out and for your time. . .

. . .and it has made me quite sad; the whole successful exec thing: being removed, being strong, not letting go, not allowing oneself to be included

very very sad

:-(

but happy enough to recognise it for what it is

thank you again

Dave said...

Ooooh matron. She said foundation too. Even ruder.

And where can I get staff like 007½ gets, please?

Rimshot said...

I've fallen in lurve with your prosaic rambling and your particular form of wordsmithing.

Apropos of nothing: I may be wrong (and I often am) but I remember learning that, from least to most self-actualized it went: Dependent, Co-dependent, Independent, Interdependent. (is that how you spell 'dependent' and all it's prefixed forms? I'm too lazy to double check at the moment).

Is it crunchy time yet?

I, still, ♥ the views said...

shot :-)

I used to know a lot about Maslow but I've forgotten it, and it's not Friday but you can have one anyway

dave you are getting a tad cheeky, sir, but that's allowed. . . dunno where she gets them - how does she pay for them is what I'd like to know and where can I apply for a grant?

mig bardsley said...

One of the joys of being away is coming back to find you've written something like this post.
I'm something of a perimeter person myself - of the observing, watching, choosing kind. And rather than a foundation, I have an anchor because I am more of a floater than a builder.

And the lighthouse picture is a bit Turneresque :)

craig andrew said...

I, coincidentally, came across this because it seems to be quite popular with the google search (along with This one)... Go figure. C:)