Emerson opens
Nature by saying "Our age is retrospective." He meant to say that our constant reflection and emphasis on tradition, religion, and the pervasive myth that all the good, important thoughts have already been thunk removes the possibility of unfettered experience. We rely too heavily on what his sometimes disciple, Walt Whitman, called "spectres in books." Funny, I've already quoted two and I'm barely three sentences in. We don't understand the real because were so vested in its representation. In the "unreal."
Tonight, our professor asked us to discuss "real" moments in our lives. Someone mentioned death. Someone mentioned moving. Someone else, currently pregnant with twins, mentioned the moment she met her first child after giving birth. I didn't raise my hand except to interject that concerts (which someone else mentioned) were largely representational because we've been trained to watch the screen and not the tiny person on stage. This was met with "yeah, well, the sense of community feels real." It's just that though. We think these huge things: birth, love, death are real when they're illusory.
Hinduism has a word for it, Maya. A kind of "there is no spoon" mentality that says that everything we can see, touch, taste, hear, smell, consider, hate, love and so on, doesn't actually exist. It's part of the cartographer's map we stretch across existence (to pull in yet another spectre.) It looks pretty real. It feels alarmingly real. But it covers and belies a reality we'll never know. "The desert of the real" (Baudrillard, not Morpheus). I like that. It means that no matter how awful things get--they don't actually exist so there's no point in killing yourself over it. That's simplifying it to a preposterous extreme, but it helps you get to sleep at night.
I suppose if there is a reality, it isn't in the big ticket items. Birth and death are surreal. We've never really learned how to handle either. If love were real more marriages would last. Moving? I don't even know what to do with that. Nature? Once, for Dr. Van Noy's Creative Nonfiction class, I wrote an entire essay around a duck I saw on the New River. Two other people saw the same duck and wrote about the decoy that had washed up by the shore and was floating between roots. What do I know of the realness of Nature if I can't distinguish it?
Then again, the afternoon after I had an abortion, I ate the best macaroni and cheese I've ever had. There was nothing especially different or better about the noodles or milk or cheddar. They were just unencumbered. I'd spent the previous three weeks--between finding out I was pregnant, finding out I was too far along to legally have an abortion in the state of Virginia, and actually driving into D.C. two days after Christmas with Nicole to have it all done-- unaware of my own body. Really, you could argue I'd spent 15.5 weeks completely detached from the day-to-day goings-on of my own body, but I didn't know about it. I had trained it to bleed so it kept bleeding. My body was in revolt and playing host and I had no idea. How was I supposed to recognize a duck from a decoy? What have I ever known of reality apart from that macaroni and cheese?
*on a semi-related note, for weeks after the abortion I couldn't get "Hills Like White Elephants" out of my head. I missed pretending it was really about a lobotomy. Then I decided that I should eventually have an experience I cannot immediately relate back to something I have read. Perhaps, instead, I should just stop reading quite so much.