Some people think I'm crazy. Not in the kooky sense, but in the let-me-bust-out-my-copy-of-the-DSM-IV sense. Many of the diagnoses that I get are somehow related to codependency. Just so we're all on the same page, here's a snippet from the
experts:
A "codependent" is loosely defined as someone
who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate,
caring for other people's struggles.
And another quick trip to the
experts:
com·pas·sion n.
Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with
the wish to relieve it.
The combination of these two definitions yields the following: Codependence, a psychological disorder, is the exhibition of too much compassion. I remain skeptical about the possibility of such a thing existing, let alone being a disorder. When I first learned that it was so classified, I was flabbergasted.
Maximized compassion is a goal to be striven for, I thought,
not a disease!
To be fair, my armchair-psychologists are dear friends, and their only wish in this diagnosis is to help me take care of myself. This is nothing to scoff at, and I appreciate it greatly. I also take a sort of joy in knowing that my attempts at compassionate living are in this way recognized. So, no problem (even though I refuse to accept it as a disorder).
There are other people, however -- equally dear and respected -- who occasionally put forward the hypothesis that I'm a selfish prick and consider no-one but myself in making my decisions. Now, this would be upsetting enough given the attempts described in the preceding paragraph, but what makes it really confusing is the utter inconsistency of of the two camps.
It might be (and often has been) said that I should simply ignore what various people choose to predicate of me. However, I must point out that it is cimpletely incompatible to, on the one hand, care deeply about others' struggles, and on the other, disregard their thoughts entirely.
The other simple resolution lies in accepting both claims as true, simply noting that it is possible that I behave one way around one set of people and another with others.
"another with others" is going to be an excellent song as soon as someone becomes inspired to write it. It's certainly a great title for one. It might be about alienation, particularly alienation as a result of overly-mediated experience and lack of real human-to-human interactions. Or maybe it will be about actual aliens, the space kind. Maybe the aliens are "the others" and they've kidnapped "another" victim. With lasers. Or maybe still, "another with others" is destined to be a jazz composition. It would be the good kind of jazz, where there are five musicians -- a drummer, a bassist (upright, naturally), a trumpet(er?), a saxophonist and a pianist -- and where the whole piece is improv, and where at any given point in the music the listener can hear any one of the instruments as playing the lead and all others as supporting it. That's jam. They used to have that kind of jam at
Dragon's Den, but it shut down years before New Orleans flooded. I can definitely see "another with others" as a track listing on the back of a jazz LP.
I put on the record and the raspy song of the sax penetrates the silence. I reach for the smokes. My world has slowed down, the bass thrums heart rhythms. The drums are exactly on beat with the snapping of my fingers. How do they do it? The paradoxically melancholy chirp of the piano is like a mating call from another universe. Groovy.
