i ruin everything…
In my years as a contributor, moderator, and designer on the web i have made many friends. There are an amazing number of wonderful people beyond our screens, peering into their own, searching, entertaining, designing, assisting, advising, and seeking this other form of communion with people. Where television fails, where advertising patronizes, and where sometimes face to face communication just stops short of really breaking through, this private (public) method of expression and community has come to mean more to me than i would really like to admit.
The truth is i prefer an email over a phone call. I prefer an ongoing dialog between friends than i do a little get together. Now i am a bit of a shut in, but i’m not reluctant to get out of the house. i adore people, and love them in person, sometimes, far more than i ever could their electronic representation. Still, the ability to carry on multiple threads of discussion and community with many people at once in a way which doesn’t require my poor frontal lobes to retain, remember, or try to hold the entire scope of each discussion in order to maintain a place in the relationship worth anyone’s time is amazing. the thread possessed the previous entries, and so, if i forget where i was, i can re read the past (i love Gmail, and phpbb, as well as wordpress) and if i make a mistake, i can go back and correct it. Also, unlike the post, or the telephone, if i say something i don’t mean, or immediately regret, there is a method of retrieval, and editing the message before it is received (in many cases.)
Yet somehow, i push too far. I ask too much. Maybe i can’t accept all the “blame” because we’re talking about dialog here. a two, three, or multi-way street of communications. But my participation is not unlike the way i stumbled repeatedly as a young man, as a group leader, and throughout my life. What seems to make me “bright with fame” is also the poison which is my undoing.
I say hello. you say hello. I ask you how you are, you answer. you ask me how I am. I answer. We talk.
Over time this grows into a long and meaningful exchange of personal feelings, thoughts, and sometimes hopes and dreams. There are people who use the internet as a way to get up, a shout out, or a voice mail message, but this isn’t what i mean. I mean a real and growing friendship between people who are open to connection.
And yet, to connect in this way with another human being who is not before you, often thousands of miles away, doesn’t know your real name, doesn’t know what you look like, and has never heard the sound of your voice, holds a whole set of inherent problems and what seem (now) to be predictable flaws.
I have a friend who met her husband on the internet. They connected virtually so intensely that this man was willing to pack up his belongings and leave his childhood home of Boston and travel all the way to the pacific north west and marry a woman he had previously only seen photographs of.
I have another friend who met her husband in an LP Mud, they visited for a few weekends, and then decided to relocate in the east together, and are now happily married with children.
My own brother was unhappily married, at the cross roads of his life, and reaching out into cyber space met someone who seemed to understand, and respond to him. So touched, he went east and brought her back with him. They married and are still thriving together in the face of all the drama and turmoil that you might imagine comes from such a bizarre series of events (especially because my brother, being my elder, and a pioneer decided to do this in the late 80’s before anyone had a concept of what “the internet” really was.)
And so the power of the internet, and electronic communication as a force in one’s heart, a personal connecting tool is far from lost on me. But what is most amazing to me, and why i even began writing this essay, is how deeply our personal lives are dying of thirst. Can it be that in our day-to-day experience in the sensual world we are failing totally to communicate with one another on so intimate a level that we seek refuge in electronic, boundaryless, distorted, yet somehow safe streams of communication to fulfill our personal and intimate needs?
It would seem that the answer to this is yes.
I would have the very same discussions and personal conversations with the man behind the counter at Peete’s Coffee that i do on the internet. I stand, always interested, and willing to share anything i think might be of service to anyone. Yet, i feel safe electronically. I don’t have to worry about my thinning hair, my breath, or my personal grooming. I can type directly from my heart, and say exactly what it is i have to say and feel sure (more or less) that the reader will take the time to understand what my mind is grappling with, or my heart is expressing.
For example:
If a man with frizzy hair, a dirty t-shirt and flip flops walked up to you at a cafe and said “Let’s party!” you might understandably look up, and then look down. Say nothing to this person. If the man persisted, it’s likely you would either ask him to go away, or even collect your things and leave yourself.
Now if you saw a post at a message board you regularly attend, and there was a stylish graphic of a man with fuzzy hair next to the text inviting you to “Party!” with music you liked, and sincere intentions, chances are you might consider going… thus, you would be taking this same person up on his invitation to party.
This is the filter. The interpretation factor of electronic communication. you are given the time to peruse, to reflect and respond emotionally to what is being presented without judgment. Not to say that the internet is without judgment, it can be a very harsh place where people’s sole aim seems to be the thrashing of others. Further, it is also not to say that people follow every link they are offered, or attend every function which appears in their in box. Quite the opposite. We adapt, we learn, we quickly adopt language which allows us to express ourselves as well as to defend ourselves. A good example of this is the subject of “Hi!” for an email. I used to open those. Now i simply delete them without a second thought. Not because i don’t appreciate a happy greeting, but because i know that i don’t want a sump pump, a Russian bride, a link to a “teen” site, or a mortgage refinancing opportunity. I have learned.
But in the last two years i have made a few very important friends on the internet. People i have not met face to face. People whom i trust with some of my most intimate details, and personal feelings. I would claim that i love these people, as much or in some ways more than any person i know in my daily life. We share openly about our feelings, our directions, our disappointments, and our struggles with the road which seems to unfold before us in an ever increasing fashion.
I have come to depend, and rely upon these people.
Yet it is to be expected in an open exchange that emotion will overcome us. Eventually someone says “i love you.” and The response can only be “i love you too.” But in time it is clarified that when they say “i love you” they mean “i love you.” Which, electronically is fine. Even the highest form of praise imaginable. But it is “safe.” safe because you have never seen this person. You have never smelled them. You have never spent the day together. And yet, there it is… emotion, truth, vulnerability, hope, offered to you in black text on a white screen.
This experience leads to some of the most baffling, disappointing, and heart-breaking exchanges i have ever had. And it is predictable, and repeatable as an experiment, yet each person’s heart is unique, and each interaction specific, and individual.
The lesson would immediately seem to be: Don’t open up your heart electronically. Stop when the discussion comes to close to home. Never forget that you are not a professional, and stop typing when it comes to interpersonal suggestion, advice, or direction.
Sounds like a good rule of thumb.
And yet, didn’t we turn to the inner space of this communication tool seeking that which was missing from our lives? didn’t we say to each other “i think you should try to get counseling” and “have you ever been to an AA meeting?” Weren’t our intentions to seek, and to give all that we have to give?
This rule of thumb, then, asks us to take our new annex of our personal lives and edit it. To moderate ourselves, and to contain our expression to the same degree with which we operate on a day to day basis. Much the same as how advertising and direct marketing seek to assault us at the bottom of our emails, and in the headers of our news pages, message boards, and in the sidebars of our blogs, we are asked to return to the couch, pick up the phone and order now.
How, then, is this a growing community? How then is this an outlet? Is the flaw in the way we speak to each other? Is the flaw in us? Is the drive, the need, to open up, and to connect the problem?
Sadly, it would seem so.
It would seem that what might have been done instead, with all the clarity of hind sight, is to seek medical help, to enter into counseling, pay $110 an hour to speak to a stranger in the hopes of building even 1/4 of the amount of intimacy, and trust which is freely offered by other suffering people on the internet. In time, perhaps, we heal. But with all relationships comes the breaking point.
My tennis partner peters out. And i am sad. I resist the urge to lash out and tell him off. I miss him. My knee-jerk reaction is to be angry, express my disappointment, imagining he might see how lame he’s been and then resume our appointments. Very poor thinking. What more, I can apply this model to almost any situation in my life.
Have i really failed to grow, in this regard, beyond the emotional equivalent of a third grader?
While i offer all slack, and accept it myself (being fallible and fragile human beings) it also seems that i have made a choice here. I have decided to operate interpersonally in cyber space. I made a decision to respond openly with everyone who makes them self vulnerable to me. And i made this decision (unconsciously of course) because in the world, face to face, when you say “i love yellow!” people look down, they turn away, or say “you do?” and nothing else. And this is sad, awkward, and often leaves us wondering “what’s the matter with me?” But electronically, it is possible to have long, drawn out dialogs about yellow, and her various shades, tints, and compliments. A whole community of devotees to the primary color can be built, and moderated to thrive into a phenomena. You will be quoted elsewhere, consulted when the subject of yellow comes up, and considered an authority.
The cable news wires now invite moderators, editors and writers from news web organizations onto their shows as talking heads. And that rests my case of the potential credibility issue.
But what is the answer to my real question or how far is appropriate to go in a conversation with someone you trust, respond to, and love?
Miss Manners says to refrain, simply log off the internet and if that doesn’t end the matter, then close comments, change addresses, and ban IP’s, but always be polite.
Other sources of guidance on the subject tend to repeatedly suggest never talk about yourself, your family, your friends, your employer, or your pets. never enter into diatribes, and Joycean streams of prose. Electronic communication, as advised by the appointed experts, is meant to apply to all social rules, and manners, all social customs, and standards.
What then, do we do, when our own views and feelings extend beyond the difference between that one is expected to do, and what one feels deeply within their hearts?
Good questions. Questions for which i have no answers.
22 Comments
nice one (the essay)… I’m still ambivalent ’bout just how I feel bout eletronic communication… occasionally completely nonplussed.
Interesting to think about people you haven’t smelled , spent a day w/ and “love”. Not contradictory… just new territory.
where new lessons are needed it would seem. new lessons which somehow are not carried over from the sensual world.
interesting.
I love the internet and I’m addicted to e-mail, but I find that I often use it as a substitute for human connection. I don’t wanna do it anymore…I think it’s a form of hiding. Take my experiences with online dating. I could create a “profile”, which was supposed to represent me, but it always ended up mis-representing me in some way. Why? Because nothing can take the place of me, in person, with all my flaws, insecurities, eccentricities and charms. I’d much rather sit at a table with you than miles and miles away through a computer screen. That’s the honest you and me. It’s just more scary and vulnerable. ???
you’re right. nothing takes the place of [b]you[/b] ali. nothing ever will.
i love that you read my journal.
thank you.
hmm…
i find this very interesting. it would seem to me that the best part of the internet is that it allows you to remain relatively anonymous, and you can share as much or as little as you want to. the supposed “rules” of the internet are nothing but guidelines that in most cases should be broken. i love being able to share who i am on the internet because those who would reject me are a lot easier to deal with than if it were in person. it is easier both to accept someone and to deal with rejection on the internet. many things it is very difficult to talk about in person, but even if you know the person you are talking to on the internet, it is psycologically easier, at least for me, to share with them more of the inner feelings.
im not sure if i am a special case, or if i am just reiterating what you are saying, but…
in my experience, i have found it much easier to talk to a person for 2-4 hours on the internet than in real life, because it allows you to do other things while talking that do not distract from what you are saying, that, if done in realspace, would seem very annoying, such as eating, or brushing teeth, or whatever.
i feel the internet is an ideal medium for communication once you filter out the spam.
erich
interesting…
maybe that’s why i have trouble “in real life” and feel right at home electronically. Not because i am reluctant to speak, or share, but because people can filter me, and somehow escape my boundless energy and interest. makes sense.
could be. at least online, i never try to avoid your energy and interest. another advantage of online communication is the ability to look up information right then to see what the person is talking about if your not so sure. i constantly do this, and i feel that it reduces annoyances, and having to over explain things. but if i did this in “real life” (which the whole concept of the computer not being real life i think is something the non-techines instituted, because who is to say that the computer is any more or less a real part of life) it would be a bother, and i wouldnt be considered to be paying attention. true, it may be easier to communicate personal matters face to face, because the facial and nonverbal communication is important during those conversations, but during technical and non-personal(and sometimes during personal conversations, ive felt it is much more satisfying to vent to an online friend who wont be hurt when i need to vent like that, and usually gives good advice), the nonverbal communication is either distracting, and in an online conversation, is done away with. this usually can help in reducing the stress levels of people who would normally clash, but still need to communicate. also, again back to what you were saying, with the online world, you are more or less free to take or not take what someone has to give you, unlike the “real” world, where, say, door to door salesmen, religious harrassers, and the like attempt to give you what they are selling whether or not you want to hear it.
anyways… im rambling.
erich
true, thus my article.
people have powerful hearts, and powerful imaginations.
but the hurt is real, isn’t it?
I’ve noticed a pattern. Extroverts are less likely to be vulnerable electronically. I don’t think it’s avoidance, I’m guessing it’s more about something feeling awkward, like an introvert trying to initial a conversation at a party. Extroverts thrive in the person-to-person dynamics. As in introvert, I can craft what I want to say to perfection in the electronic world, without social pressure to perform eloquently and precisely on the first and only try.
So the hurt is real. As much as the myriad of negative or unresponsive facial expressions can hurt the extrovert no matter how eloquently they presented their offering.
nate…
you are wise.
kinda says it all doesn’t it? and in such a compact little paragraph too. proves your point so well.
thanks.
Thanks. I’m glad my thoughts resonated with you. :)
I had some clarity when I read your entry since I recently swallowed a substantial dose of e-hurt myself. No reply for a week, finally I got one. After absorbing the impact of the short response, I couldn’t stomach the idea of scrolling down and rereading my original tome so pitifully hanging from “On October 4, 2004, Nate wrote:…”
It was painful, to see my dozens and dozens of lines of outpouring having been sent racing, only to slam against the brick wall of a 5 line Re:.
Well, not hearing back, or people not responding to the intended content of e-communication is understandable. At least to me, i assume going into it that my writing (especially when i am sincere, and making a real effort to state my feelings, thoughts, etc…) will be either skimmed or skipped.
Much of my experience in cyber space has been suffering the “s’up pimp?” and the “Hi!” “Hi!”’s of lighter discourse.
And so it is pretty rare when what i might consider a real, and vulnerable dialog breaks out.
Yet, it is when the real life (irl) and the virtual life collide in cataclysmic hurt, suffering, misunderstanding, and bring real consequences that i begin to wonder about my involvement in such dialogs.
It is, in many ways, as if i harbor myself, safe from harm, in my daily experiences. And no matter how sincere, open, and kind i am, there is some degree of complicity with society at large operating.
And while this is also true online, it just seems to be the perfect place where what we withhold in person, seeps out of the cracks at the first opportunity.
As if we are practising for our potential rebirth in the world. Or, i suppose, venting.
i want to live. i do not want to withhold, nor vent for the purposes of maintenace.
But somehow, the lines blur. The path, vague, and impossible to trace.
Exactly. This is where my e-tomes come from.
You think I’d have caulked those cracks by now, since I learned my first lesson about not expecting an equally engaged reply starting around ‘94 or so.
i dont think an open heart can stay caulked for very long… greater fissure can be expected from hiding things out of sight.
social norms and ettiquette aside, the heart feels what it feels, no person or rulebook can prevent or stop it. no one can decide the validity of a human’s feelings.
for we are just feeling humans, and is there not just as much hurt involved in [i]not[/i] expressing what one’s heart feels?
i should think possibly much more.
That’s a hard one for me to figure out. Sealing it off at the start is sometimes more appealing than feeling it flow out and then watching it be stepped around and avoided, to dry up in the sun and turn brown on the dirty cement. I can tell myself for a while that it’s my own self-image that makes it appear that the contents of my heart are repulsive, but then I make an empirical record, and start counting the silent faces turning the other way, not with disgust, but worse, with no expression at all as they step around to avoid staining their soles. The data piles up and eventually reaches a threshold where no doubt is left.
and you don’t think that to not express this ache, this disappointment hurts more than to lay it on the line and say it?
while i agree that indifference is the worst, disgust at least telling us that we are seen and felt, even if the reaction is negative, can we truly be an objective judge of what lies underneath that? meaning, we are not isolated, and dynamics inherently require the participation of more than one. so might it be not that the contents of your heart are repulsive, but that the person(s) with whom you try to share is unwilling (or unable) to take off their own cloak and be vulnerable?
I honestly don’t know… …I guess I laid it on the line here in a way, maybe. I don’t know, it’s so foreign. I started stuffing it down probably around 5 years old so maybe I have a thick scarred lining now that I’m very used to. Letting it flow, an alien concept, means fresh cracks on the outside surface that I’ve never had to observe before. Maybe outer cracks are less harmful than fermenting acid, but I need evidence, and I shun faith. As messed up as it is, when I stuff it down, it’s a dynamic I understand despite the pain. Having no control over people’s reactions is terrifying, and then when a response never comes or shows up the opposite of what I’d hoped for… and so on.
No, and I intellectually understand how narcissistic it is to make broad assumptions about what other people think, but I make my scapegoat the god of science… meaning, when unable to shake my gut feeling, when “positive thinking” fails me, I turn to the dark side and crunch the numbers. I will log the indifference versus the interest received over many people, different groups of friends, etc. When patterns carry over across all the groups, I don’t doubt. I trust the science. Of course, if I cared nothing of what people thought, I’d be less affected by any of it, and less self-absorbed, but that person only exists in my dreams at this point. But yeah, indifference is the worst. Disgust can at least contain clarity.
But i wonder if applying logic (thinking) and science to the language of one’s heart won’t always lend itself to some degree of suffering.
I wrote a long, and quite expository letter to someone today, early in the day. 18 hours later, no reply.
am i to suffer now?
kinda…
but that’s not because of anyone else. it’s because of my hopes. my expectations.
you’d think i would learn that when i stick my neck out i get wounded. or, that when i open up and lay it on the line i am greeted by cold silence, or worse: rejection.
But i have to wonder: is that the man i want to be? recalcitrant, reluctant to express myself? cards close to my chest?
the answer is conditional, never entirely honest. i think the feeling that comes over me when i think of things in this way equals something like: yes, but only if i can have what i truly want and hope for.
but could i do it?
no more than i could change anyone else, and their mind, and their heart.
i am, who i am.
be who you are.
and examine your expectations carefully. examine your patterns of behavior. do you continue to choose people who will not reciprocate? how does that happen? what is it based on?
i see my patterns clearly. i choose people for my most intimate friends who can not, or do not express themselves openly with me (they are often overwhelmed, or uninterested.) And another pattern is adopting those who “need” me. They never love me, or even really like me, but they take, and take from me. And when i say no, they turn on me, viciously.
these (and much, much more party-fun) comes directly from my basic make up, my family of origin. And it seems that the harder i attempt to apply logic to the connundrum, the more i prove the pattern to be the only course of action.
so i accept myself, as i am.
and strive, armed with self knowledge, meditation, prayer, and a lust for life, communication, affection, music, design, art, and friendship, to be precisely who i was meant to be.
It seems like you are doubting your own heart.
try trusting it.
: )
Thanks Sunshine and Lorin. :)
no, thank you, nate, for putting it on the line. i feel honored that you have shared.
loving your whole heart,
lorin