It takes all kinds to make a world, they say. If you boil that down to the most basic of denominators, you end up with two--those who make a difference and those who don't.
There are those who waltz into your life and never quite waltz back out. Years later, you find yourself telling your friends, your aquaintances, your grandkids about that person who made an indelible impression on you. People are drawn to them wherever they go--they're the life of the party, the glue of the group, the ones everyone falls in love with, and often leave a trail of broken hearts in their wake.
Then there are the others. The ones with whom you form a loose bond--or if you do manage a stronger one, it's usually temporary; the ones whom you see when they're there but don't particularly miss when they're not; the ones who stand on the fringes, never quite comfortable with themselves or anyone else; the ones who are easily forgotten and gotten over; the ones who are usually left, repeatedly, with the broken hearts.
I think most people are different in different circumstances, and can flit between these two categories, depending on whom they're with and what the situation calls for. But there are a few--very few, I believe--who fall squarely into one or the other, and don't quite manage to ever leave it. In which case, is it better to belong to the first or the second? And what does one do upon making the discovery?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think you're talking way too much in the abstract. Who are these people who are *inevitably* and *always* in either category 1 or 2? I think everyone is in category 1 to some people and everyone is in category 2 to some people.
Also, how are you defining categories 1 and 2? Life of the party? Sure, some people are more introverted or extroverted than others. Broken hearts? Sure, some people date more than others. Wise souls who offer consistently good advice?
You make category 1 people sound like winners and category 2 people sound a bit like losers. And I'm not sure why that is the case. I know several people who were tangentially involved in my life, and yet have remained in my thoughts for life. Not b/c they are category 1 type of people and broke my heart but just b/c they spoke to me somehow. Take, for example, my 8th grade history teacher, who turned to me one day and said, "You do not have the discipline of a musician. You do, however, have the ability of a writer." I hold those words dear to me, wondering if that will ever be true.
Caveboy.
C, This is not about people who are introverted or extroverted. I'm saying there are some people who make a lasting impression on most people they come into contact with and others who don't--and most people don't fall firmly into either.
The people you mention, who were tangentially involved in your life, but who've remained in your thoughts--they fall into the first category. I'm sure there are others who have been in your life over many years, but you wouldn't particularly miss them if they were gone.
What puts these people in either category is an intrinsic quality--being the life of the party or the broken hearts they leave behind are just some outward manifestations of those inner attributes. I know people who date a lot, are extroverts and are often the life of the party--but they fall into the second category. The inner qualities define the outer, not the other way round.
And the words of your 8th grade history teacher--why has that person made such an impression on you, despite being wrong re: your lack of a musician's discipline? Possibly because s/he falls into the first category?
I guess I'm just saying that it's hard to figure out what the the "je ne sais quoi" of a first category person, and the reason might be b/c there is no such category. You never know how time, place and circumstances will play into whether someone's (tangential or continuous) involvement in your life will be meaningful or forgettable. Is there some person who *consistently* and *inevitably* will profoundly (however that is interpreted) affect the lives of all that he or she comes into? I don't think so.
Thus, I can't believe there is a category 1 or category 2 person. Unless we're talking about, say, The Pope or Mother Theresa. Or Bush. For better or worse.
I do think, however, that there are people who put themselves in the position of affecting the lives they interact with more often than not. These are teachers, leaders, people who actively seek to involve themselves in the lives of others, by inviting people over for dinner, by going over to meet them for drinks, by serving as a mentor to the young, by interacting with colleagues. Sure, those people more likely than not are going to leave a lasting contribution on several lives than the person in cubicle 40835 who sits in front of a computer and only gets up for bathroom breaks (But you never know! Perhaps that person is an online counselor who has innumerable online chat friends who need his/ her support on a regular basis).
So I guess my new point here is that category 1 or 2 people aren't immutable. It isn't that you are *inevitably* in category 1 or 2.
What to do I guess depends on who you are and what you want.
Thanks for dropping by.
Post a Comment