There is a world outside us. Hard to believe I know, but it’s true. We spend so much of our time looking at the outside world; watching the news, sitting in coffee shops people watching, staring out of the window wondering what might have been. How many of us live in the ‘real’ world? What is ‘real’? Is it what we can see, taste and touch? Or is it something more than that? Is it a combination of emotions, interactions and reactions?
One can argue, of course, that we are what we are. Humans made the same. Granted, there are disparities between us, those with higher or lower intelligence perhaps, those on higher or lower incomes, those with higher or lower physical abilities. We are, however, in essence all human. We all have senses (and far more than those five that are espoused to exist. Senses of balance and direction being other examples) and we use them to heighten our reality and our connection to the ‘real’ world.
It could also be argued, of course, that it is through our interactions with people that we come to live in the ‘real’ world. After all, it was John Donne that said ‘No man is an island’. Is it perhaps the case that we come to the ‘real’ world through other people? That on our own, our lives mean nothing?
It’s tough to imagine a world with only one person in it. What would you do? Would you go crazy? Would it be possible to be crazy if there’s no one to tell you are? After all, our concepts of sanity or insanity are relative concepts, as are many of the labels we attach to people. Is the ‘real’ world then a battle for superiority to be ‘better’ than the others who you live with? Certainly, a subversion of a Darwinian methodology would seem to point to this as would a vast majority of much political philosophy, not to mention some psychological schools of thought.
 |
| People make people real. Also swan chariots! |
One is said to be most alive when they are closest to death or right on the edge, embroiled in a struggle with their fellow man. Men are also seen to be at their most ‘macho’ when they are fighting with another. Boxing, wrestling, most sports and anyone in the armed forces, not to mention regular gym goers could all be pointed out as the most ‘masculine’ within our society. Are they then the most ‘real’ people in our society or the ones who get closest to what ‘real’ is?
By contrast, women are said to be closest to what ‘real’ is after the birth of a child. The release of oxytocin floods their system and the bonding between mother and child takes place. Is this then the most ‘real’ experience we can know? Is it right that there should be a distinction between males and females in this respect?
It seems foolish
to continue to try and define what ‘real’ is. There are many possible
definitions and for one person to try and make sense is demeaning to everyone
else. What I will say however, is that for me, reality is definitely best found
through other people. Sadly, reality isn’t as wonderful as others would have us
believe and burying one’s head in the sand frequently seems like the best
option. Others will chastise and berate one for doing this. They will say ‘He’s
out of touch’, ‘He’s taken a walk off the planet’ and ‘He’s not present, he’s
not engaging with the world’. To them, I say: The world hurts. More than we can
possibly come to terms with. Those small victories like gaining and maintaining
superiority over one’s fellow man or having a child are the things that keep us
going. We need people and none of us should be ashamed of that. We all want to
be loved, we want to be admired and cared about and anyone who tries to take
that away from us will have ‘reality’ brought to their doorstep. Between a
man's testosterone and a women’s oxytocin, nothing gets in the way.
Reality, for me,
is a combination of desire and fear. Desire to be loved, wanted and needed and
fear of losing it, once one has it. That’s what those people in the coffee
shops are looking for, I think. You can’t ‘sense’ reality either. All those
interactions with everyone you meet are what make up reality. One could say
nature is part of reality but I don’t think it is. Reality is shared
experiences. That’s what it means to be human; to share experiences. We can
choose to disconnect by being on our phones, on the internet, on Facebook and
that’s all well and good but we need shared experiences to bring us closer to
each other and give us ‘real’ experiences. If nature is shared, it is real.
I know this brings problems as well, because those things that are absolutely individual to us, such as sleep, couldn’t be real in this case. However, the other side of the argument is that the things that are most real are the things we share most; art, drama, music, books, film, and so on. Perhaps then, the most individual things to us such as fighting (not necessarily on a physical level but on any competitive level) or having a child are the things most ‘real’ for an individual. Yet on a community level, the things we share most, such as our creativity, are the things that are most ‘real’. Maybe it’s a combination of the two that enables us to grasp our surroundings and prioritise as to what’s most important. Maybe it’s necessary for people to have both sides of the coin and be able to do both as well as the other.
One thing is sure though: The latter one buries their head in the sand; they’ve lost touch with both themselves and their community.
The world hurts.
Engage or create. Either one will do.
Mark Tannett
