Isn't it dismal how day-to-day interactions have been watered down to predictable reactions to predictable events? Sometimes, I almost feel like just tuning out from what someone is ranting on about and reacting just based on their facial expressions, because I think that actually works. In fact, most of the time, even if I'm listening to what they are saying, I don't know how exactly to react until I get a certain cue from them, physically or intuitively, on how they want me to react. I guess it's good since it prevents me from stepping over boundaries or nudging people the wrong way.
I was thinking about the entire issue of anagnorisis, which by Merriam-Webster definition:
"Anagnorisis is the point in the plot, especially of a tragedy, at which the protagonist recognises his or her or some other character's true identity or discovers the true nature of his or her own situation."
The problem I have with this definition is that it doesn't identify from who's perspective does the anagnorisis take place. Yes, I know, it is the protagonist's anagnorisis, but I think that in most tragedies I've read, anagnorisis is not reached until it is too late - until the entire event has become unsolvable. In fact, there are many points in the play that the main character seems to have reached a certain realisation, but misinterprets it, leading him further away from actual anagnorisis.
However, even in plays, when an anagnorisis is misinterpreted, the correct interpretation will be reached nearing the end of the play - such is a very idealistic view of anagnorisis. In real life, I believe, many people think they have reached anagnorisis on a certain issue, when they actually haven't, but never realise their mistake. In fact, they can probably live through the rest of life on that misinterpretation and I think it's my personality as an INFJ to find dilemma in that.
Not all anagnorisis is desirable, depending on the timing. Most of the time in plays, the main character only becomes a tragic character because he reached anagnorisis far too late to salvage anything that has been lost or destroyed - often times the death of a loved one. A very typical and simple example would be a main character that discovers his/her love for someone only after they have lost that person. In real life, too, since everything works on a deadline, anagnorisis can come too late. It's funny too, isn't it, how the word is called "deadline" - the death of a certain situation, the utter inability to salvage the situation past a certain time.
The INFJ dilemma, thus, is whether it is right to prevent anagnorisis, knowing the pain that it would bring, or to accelerate it, in the pursuit of truth. Of course, I'm assuming that I even have the power to do either, because as far as I'm concerned, I can only nudge situations either way.
I know that in this situation I am in, it's almost like a business curve or any other curve that goes up and down (the plot of a tragedy, a sine/cosine curve, etc). There is a certain period of time when anagnorisis will lead to benefits and overall happiness gained (actually there isn't happiness lost). Then there is a peak period where anagnorisis will lead to tragedy-like consequence and it would be quite amusing to watch if only I weren't involved. Last, there is this period, after an undefined time, when the anagnorisis would no longer mean as much, simply because at that point, there really is nothing that can/could have been done. I'm not the type that believes that time will heal all wounds, or else I wouldn't be in the state I'm in. But I do believe that time allows things to become buried, or for a person to become numb.
The Passive Choice
Passivity, most of the time, is interpreted as the act of not doing anything. Well, I beg to differ. After all to choose to do nothing is an active choice. You basically chose between doing something and doing nothing, and in that choice, you've already taken your stand. True passivity comes only when you have choice stripped from you and there is no choice besides being passive.
So by my definition of passivity, in this case, to remain passive is to make a choice to prevent anagnorisis. By the refusal to impart the knowledge or to warp it into very vague terms, I realise that I am actually making an active choice to prevent anagnorisis. It is for an INFJ, not an INFP, reason that I do so, although the INFP reason is also considered to be quite important.
From an INFJ standpoint, I think the more important reason for preventing anagnorisis is my belief and prediction that the most likely time the anagnorisis would occur, even with my intervention, is after the first period of positivity. Meaning, I think that no matter how I interfere, it would not result in anything pleasant. If anagnorisis happens during that desirable timeframe, then it is not due to my interference, but of the "protagonist" himself or fate (I suppose). Because of this belief, it is then more desirable to prevent anagnorisis to minimise the pain that will follow. Once again, if I can prevent people around me from being hurt, then I will do it, even if it means I am hiding some things from them.
From an INFP standpoint, the more important reason would be the authenticity of anagnorisis. INFPs are more concerned about authenticity than about harmony, because well, Fi instead of Fe, and from their standpoint, for me to interfere in the discovery of anagnorisis would be to undermine the true value of discovery. More important, since this particular case of anagnorisis has to do with emotions, it would also undermine the emotion discovered. Thus, from an INFP point-of-view, a decision would actually be easier to make in the sense that I should absolutely take a passive stance.
The Active Choice
It may be for selfish reasons that I don't take an explicitly active role. To do so would be to get myself more implicated with the end result than need be, which I know will bring a lot of guilt should it turn out badly. Since I already assumed that it is more likely that anagnorisis will come too late, it's probably because I don't want to be part of what caused it to be late. Even if I'm not the one to decide things ultimately, as long as I had a hand to play in it, then it is partly my fault.
Also, because everything is working on my intuition, it is rather risky for me to put too much stake in anything that will happen. It will affect me, obviously, but in a sense, if anagnorisis isn't reached, nothing would actually happen to me. Things will continue as they are, nothing changes. If it is reached, then it brings a different dimension into things so even if I wish for the positive ending, I think a larger part of me just hopes that I am wrong about the whole thing. But how can I possibly know if I'm wrong? My intuition often only gets feedback way after it comes to me. It could take days or weeks, or months or years, for it to be proved right or wrong.
On my side, there's also another active choice. And that, is to defy my intuition and leave the anagnorisis up to fate. If I simply up and leave then none of this will be related to me anymore. Since I've already deduced the unlikeliness of the positive outcome, then the smart thing to do is to quickly take my exit. But I've nothing been particularly smart about stuff like that. It's like those kind of moments when a stupid person is so stupid that they don't realise that the solution presented to them is actually smart. In my case, I know it's smart, but I blind myself, deaf myself and completely just decided to ignore the smart option. Still, there is a possibility that, one day, I may just choose to be smart and up and leave, leaving this whole anagnorisis thing behind me.
But it's difficult for me to make a choice because on one hand...
My intuition tells me that the door has not closed yet and is more widely open than it seems to be. Yet, it is my intuition, it's nothing solid. It's always been right about things like this, but is it worth finding out whether it's right or wrong? I have defied my intuition before and turned away from a door I thought was closing, only to find out it was waiting for me the whole time, it's just that everyone involved didn't realise it until it was too late. So, is it possible for me to keep my eyes on both doors at once?
I mean in a way, I'm tired and scared too, to follow something as intangible as intuition. Even if it has proven itself to be a great ally, something I should listen to a lot more than I have, I have been trained to believe more in what is concrete than what is not. Also, if everyone believed in things concrete, things that are intangible lose their meaning. The anagnorisis could go wrong, things could be misinterpreted and then I'll never get a confirmation for my intuition.
We'll see, shan't we, whether this time I will follow my intuition and my heart, or logic and my brain. And then let's see what happens to this anagnorisis, whether it is lost to misinterpretation or whether it actually bears fruit - a rotten fruit or a nice one.
No comments:
Post a Comment