A rock, a chair or a stool. Recently, I read in TTC that we should always be ready to leave a seat vacant for someone else "if we are able". Then I begin to wonder, what does "able" in this context mean? I suppose that for the majority of people, sitting is entirely an option, but I can imagine in a Kantian universe, everyone's duty is to stand rather than to sit. And how might we know for certain who is able and unable to stand? These are quibbling remarks, but prelude to something else that I am driving at.
Sitting is often a metaphor likened to stewing or incubating, whereas standing tends to connote a firm conviction or belief. We sit on something when it hasn't yet hatched: an idea, an embryo of a thought, a seed, a notion, etc. We stand, on the other hand, when we are certain that the bedrock under us is sure and clear, hence the term "to take a stand", "stand up for" or "a place to stand". While sitting connotes prevarication, standing connotes authority. Now, to my main point: is it possible that the reason so many people sit rather than stand is that they lack the conviction of their own beliefs, let alone the confidence to feel themselves grounded in the world? I think that the tiredness that I feel is related to the idea that I may not fully know where my feet are planted, and this takes a lot of faith and confidence. It is like saying, "the time for thinking is gone and I have made my decision. I know where I am in the universe". And this is a liberating feeling.
I suppose there is a point where thinking has to stop and one must know where the gravity points to. And it's acceptable not to have to go further into deliberation. This is about being strong in one's heart, based on what one has learned from past experiences.
No comments:
Post a Comment