by - January 13, 2014

To be or not to be, that's the question - Hamlet by Shakespeare

I identify myself with the things I love. So for me it's a bad thing when someone I don't like love the things I love. My being is, I think, (mostly) formed by the things I love. It's part of this visual circle of being, growing, becoming and being again. I can't be without influences from others, which makes me grow whereby I become a new me. Thus, when someone I don't like makes the same growth as I do -loving the things I love-, I must be (similar) to that person... which is of course not someone I want to be.

But lately I've been questioning this reasoning. Because 1) the first being is different from my being, or for that fact everyones being, 2) growing is equal to process and we process things different, 3) because our process is different, the result also ought to be different and 4) after result (being again) there's also a difference of how we use the given information and add that to our base, which makes us grow. So basically it doesn't really matter, because from start to finish we're unequal and therefore always dissimilar.

Morse, more Morse, Tavi Gevinson by Petra Collins, deer on bed and a hotelbedroom.

However, what if there's a time and place when we synchronize? It may be a brief moment, but at that moment we are indeed equal and therefore simmilar. Does that make me the person I don't like? Or, because it's me, nature's provides us with some protection so we don't see that the one I don't like is in actuality me? It's pretty obvious that that's not how the world works and I can become someone I don't like. But I wonder if this has anything to do with the things I love. Because I'm drawn to things that not only I, but a lot of people (even those I don't particular like) love. Therefore there must always be a simmilarity in our unequalty. So can it be that we, as people, are stuck between the lines of identification -love- and disidentification -hate- making us always aware of both sides and thereby being the same person at ones?

I don't know, to be honest. But it would indeed be something quite human to be or feel two extremes at the same time. Loving something while hating it. And maybe that's just part of our process... if there is a process. Maybe we're made to be like we become in the end. And everything that comes between the point of being, and I guess dying, is something pre-stated. Which makes me think of Sherlock Holmes and his tumble (the part where he fakes his death, may this been through the outlet of television or books). We can manipulate the state of the end, making a cliff-hanger -if you like- and therefore everything that's pre-stated isn't. Because the intention of being dead is often seen as the end. So when the end isn't actually the end, everything stated between those points aren't pre anymore. For example you've already got a gravestone, which is often something that's been pre-stated in your will as something you want, something that you've wished for (I wouldn't say love) and thereby you get. But if that moment has come earlier, because you've faked your death, everything that's pre-stated ought've been wiped out. So in theory after you've faked your death, you can become anyone because the timeline that you've been given is worldly seen as something that has passed. 

#SherlockLives #NotDead

So by faking your death you can, in theory, become something more like you. Because the things that's been hanging above your head has been removed, you can easily love something without the annoyance of someone you don't like loving the same. Because you aren't physically there. Now you can say that mentally you're still the same. Only the stage of you're life has closed it's curtains, but not the theatre. The performance is still going on, just without an audience. And I think that the audience is responsible for the mentality someone has regarding to love or being loved. So when there's no audience, you experience those subjects differently. And that's why I think Arthur Conan Doyle brought Sherlock back. Not because of the money, but because of the audience he was missing (alright, and the money). 

 Sir Conan Doyle could fumble around again with this character, because everything that's been pre-stated could be disregarded. Making the story of Sherlock Holmes, atleast in the books, irregular (or the books are irregular because at some point in his life he couldn't care less. But for now hold that thought). And this may also be the intake by everyone who makes the character into something new. A new form of media, a new way to present something that ones was believed dead. Maybe that's why series 3 of Sherlock (BBC) was quite different from those before. Because that version of Sherlock faked his death and is now in this changed environment making his return of "not dead". Hereby being confronted that the thing he loves is also loved by someone else. Only this is something he accepts (also when it turns out that it's been a very bad girl). He accepts the fact that not everything in life can be loved from one point of view. The creation of a being doesn't stop when lights go out, it can make you realize how much something is worth. So by faking your death you're not just the things you love, but the things that love you back.


You May Also Like


  1. I sometimes just want to get on the road and go, and never look back. But i am afraid that nobody would miss me. I don't know if I always like the people that like the same things as me, it makes me also suspicious.
    Come by my blog if you want, let's follow each other on Bloglovin? Or Twitter?
    my hollywood daze

    1. Hi Mona,

      I'd tried to advocate with this text (very badly I must confess), that by going away and going back again (faking your death) one experience something through another perspective. Lets say like wrapping a present. Less dramatic, but still the same outcome. By making a distance between you and the subject of matter, the subject can turn into another meaning. For instance I've got this My Little Pony collection. I've got it ever since I can remember. Over the years it got stacked away into the pile of childhood-stuff. One day I was cleaning my room and decided that I didn't need them anymore. So I threw them away. That night I was laying in my bed and couldn't sleep, because my ponies were missing. So in the middle of the night I went head to toe into the dumpster to collect my ponies. I, theoratically speaking, faked the death of my ponies whereby I got a new perspective of what those miniature plastic horses mean to me. This is a constructivistic way of looking at subjects. I say that we are the ones who makes something matter and that matter can change because of us. By making a distence, or making (pre)stated points in ones life come at a non-chronological rate, makes that what you had or ought've had different from when you get it now.

      I'm dearly shocked that you think no one will miss you when you would go away. Mostly it's not a case of lack of appreciation towards you, but because you're right before their eyes. There's nothing to miss when it's there. Ones it's gone you realize what you've lost. So trust me, they will miss you.


      P.s. Sorry for the long reply.