The Sovereign Autonomous Self - Plants II

Last night I got into an argument which I think was based purely on semantics, though it was never articulated thus. At the center of the argument was the issue of independence. Now, as a person deeply steeped in sociology, I would say it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a state of complete independence. The great philosophical giant, Hegel, would argue that indeed, every person NEEDS the other - it is through the recognition of the self by the other that the self is made real (I'm paraphrasing here when I should be exact so don't rip on me too harshly).

It was today after a less than hectic day at the school that I began stewing over the wordings used the previous evening. After all, what does it mean to be truly independent? What does it mean to be self-reliant? Autonomous? I like this definition:
au·ton·o·mous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ô-tn-ms)
adj.

1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous judiciary; an autonomous division of a corporate conglomerate.
2. Independent in mind or judgment; self-directed.
3. 1. Independent of the laws of another state or government; self-governing.
   2. Of or relating to a self-governing entity: an autonomous legislature.
   3. Self-governing with respect to local or internal affairs: an autonomous region of a country.

(taken from an online dictionary )

So if this is to be our working definition, let's take a look how this might be achieved. No wait, it can't! To say that a person is never influenced even acutely by external forces is preposterous in this world. It is as if we were applying the standards of Mr. Walter Kronkite and saying that the current news media is fair and unbalanced. Independent. Yes, of course. Just like those movies we see on CABLE, sponsored by major motion picture companies like Warner Brothers or Universal.

It is a rare thing, independence. A silly thing to strive for, if in fact we are looking for the aforementioned absolutely autonomous kind of independence. There are always biases. I served on a jury this October in Santa Barbara. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION of acknowledges that EACH juror WILL HAVE BIASES particularly on GRAND juries - that is to say, they WILL be affected by external forces.

All of this said and done, our conversation was not chiefly surrounding issues of independence, and certainly not of independence on some grand political scale. No. The little debate in a small red car on the shore of the central coast was one based on those issues of individuals, which only affect society in so much as they are representative of some predominant trend or provide the inertia to begin a chain of events.

Though I cannot imagine these things occurring, they will affect the lives of those in the conversation. To what extent does one depend on another? When is it too much? When does that person combine with the other inextricably? Is such a relationship desirable? Is it not? Is it uncomfortable? Why?

Is there ever an appropriate time, a safe time, to say that you 'need' a particular person? I suppose after dehabilitating surgery, or a child fresh from the womb could safely say such things 9if they were cogent enough to articulate such thoughts, or HAVE such thoughts). But for you or I to say that we need someone... is that ok? Circumstances must dictate the course taken. I don't think it is safe to assume automatically that a person (who does not qualify under the above categories of baby or invalid) cannot or should not be dependent.

It is quite the fashion to say that we are individuals and we are independent of our families and our friends and that we don't NEED anyone. It is often expected that people should be able to fend for themselves relatively easily. While those 'strong' introverts in the audience may feel quite comfortable in this cultural standard, unfortunately more extroverted persons might feel a little differently. And if you agree with theories of birth order, then only children, who rely on friends and parents heavily might safely be damned.

Or perhaps self-reliance need not be a total thing. Perhaps it need only be present in one or two aspects of a person enough so that there is no apparent 'clinging.' Maybe that's all that is at the heart of the debate. Clinginess. I can recall several times in my life where I have been on the receiving end of 'chronic cling.' It isn't a pleasant situation if you are used to variety. Of course, there are many levels to everything, and my tolerance for cling is different from others.' For example, I may not have a problem hanging out with person A everyday for a couple of hours as long as I can hang out with person B - H at another point in time during the same day. If you feel close to someone, you naturally want to spend a good bit of time with them. Especially if they are not in the same geographical location as yourself for the majority of the year.

So what are my conclusions (at least those I deem MOST relevant)?
1) Total independence is impossible.
2) Autonomy is impossible.
3) The collective conclusions arrived at by the parties involved will have a lasting impact on said parties' directions.
4) Clinginess is the real issue.
5) Clinginess is an evaluative term and therefore will mean different things to different people and is not necessarily a helpful way to describe the discomfort of parties involved.

AND the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONCLUSION (drum roll):

6) I have so much more to learn about this person it is unbelieveable. They have so much more to learn about me. I don't really think we're on different sides, though it often seems we come out that way.

I still love my plumeria more than anything, and if it needs something, I will give it. I don't NEED the plant, I want it. I prefer it. I feel warm and fuzzy towards it. I won't die without it.