How To Know Someone. Or, Circuitous Theories Spurred By Paranoia.

Is it possible, finally, for one human being to achieve perfect understanding of another?
We can invest enormous time and energy in serious efforts to know another person, but in the end, how close are we able to come to that person’s essence? We convince ourselves that we know the other person well, but do we really know anything important about anyone?
– Haruki Murakami, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle

The question of how to know another person has been haunting me lately.

I’ve been thinking about the process of getting to know someone as something scientific, as a formula of sorts. When you want to get to know someone, you listen to what they have to say about themselves and you are able to form a sort of understanding about them based on what they expressly tell you they are. Once you have that foundation of knowledge you start making inferences, picking up on the subconscious things that they do and say to deepen your understanding of them.

It all seems like a straightforward and logical progression, like the Scientific Method of human interaction. But human interaction is not really anything like nature unfolding organically. It’s difficult to believe that anyone could act naturally all of the time, because natural is an act. I think it’s safe to say that the way humans interact with other humans is based in large part upon fear of judgment or alienation, and the desire to project an image of themselves that will be favorable to others.

Taking that into consideration, is it possible to understand another person if what they project, and what you perceive, isn’t a mirror-image of their inner essence? It’s not difficult to be overdramatic or to downplay your suffering, or to make yourself look self-deprecating or confident, depending on what reaction you’re trying to elicit from another person. And that is what concerns me: all of the power lies with the person that the other person is trying to understand.

And it seems that what makes us think we can truly know someone is our earnest desire to know someone, to love someone, to believe in someone, to trust someone. But isn’t that just naivete? I’m the type of woman who often feels skittish around men I don’t know because I’ve been conditioned to be suspicious of their intentions and assume that they’re a rapist or serial killer, or at least have the potential to be so (thanks, Mom!). But think about how many women have succumbed to death at the hands of a man, whether it be a husband or a boyfriend or a relative or an acquaintance, because they believed they knew that man well enough to know that he wasn’t capable of killing them. What about the Craigslist killer? Women were murdered because they believed, or maybe wanted to believe, that this man was okay and that he was what he said he was. They bought into the image that he projected and ended up paying for it.

I always worry that I’ll end up with a Dexter, who is so good at faking normalcy that no suspects that he has a really twisted dark secret life. But how would I ever know? Ay, there’s the rub.

And that makes me wonder: is ignorance bliss when it comes to knowing another person, as long as no one is getting hurt? is it sufficient to simply think that you know someone? I don’t have an answer to that question, although it leads to another question: how much of being able to be understood is tied up in being able to understand yourself? I’m starting to believe that maybe being able to be known is contingent on your level of self-knowledge, like you have to know yourself like the back of your hand to be able to project an accurate image of yourself to someone else. But at the same time, you have to be committed to being honest and not censoring yourself in front of someone else to really be known. I believe that one can commit themselves to being as transparent and natural as possible in their speech and actions, but can one really know oneself like the back of their hand? Is it possible to have yourself entirely figured out, or can we only figure out the things that we can see, the things that are apparent to us? Do you see why I’m tortured by these thoughts?

These tortured thoughts manifested themselves in my dreams last night: I dreamt that my parents told me that I was adopted and that they thought I should meet my birth parents, and when I met them, I knew I was supposed to like them and possibly even love them, but I couldn’t get over the fact that I knew nothing about them and that they had been absent from my life for twenty-three years and that I had little sisters that I never even knew existed until I saw them hugging the legs of my birth parents, who were trying so hard to be excited to meet me and get to know me, but who eventually got listless and bored and simply waved goodbye from the couch when I left. How depressing, right? I think the really tragedy of this dream is how betrayed I felt by my parents, the people I’ve known my entire life, for thinking they knew best when they withheld the fact that they didn’t actually give birth to me FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE. And this dream was really overdramatic, but I think it reinforces what I’ve been ruminating on in terms of understanding other people. I love my parents and they love me, and they accept my eccentricities and think I’m funny and call me out when I’m wrong, and I’ve known them my entire life because they created me, but I don’t think even they understand me wholly, or understand my essence, as Murakami puts it. And if they can’t, I don’t know that anyone ever can.


5 responses to “How To Know Someone. Or, Circuitous Theories Spurred By Paranoia.

  1. “…that makes me wonder: is ignorance bliss when it comes to knowing another person, as long as no one is getting hurt?”

    Now I’m a pretty skeptical person in general, and one whose tendency it is to get stuck in the middle of hedgehog dilemmas. From the Wiki: the hedgehog dilemma “is an analogy about the challenges of human intimacy. It describes a situation in which a group of hedgehogs all seek to become close to one another in order to share their heat during cold weather. However, once accomplished, they cannot avoid hurting one another with their sharp quills. They must step away from one another. Though they all share the intention of a close reciprocal relationship, this may not occur for reasons which they cannot avoid.”

    I tend to believe the truth of this dilemma, because of the innate human quality we share: we’re never really satisfied… with anything.

    However, if you chalk an ideal relationship up to the pleasant but ignorant and distanced knowledge of one another, I think you’re losing the one thing that’s nice about being human: our capacity to reach the highest physiological, emotional and spiritual heights out of the entire animal kingdom. You can’t have a joygasm with someone who you’re ignorant of. It doesn’t matter if no one’s getting hurt. No one’s getting healed, either.

    • Mr. Lang, you make excellent points. It may be true that we as humans can experience more heightened physiological/emotional/spiritual states than other animals, but humans are still animals. How do we know that there isn’t an even higher plane of physiological/emotional/spiritual existence than what the average person typically experiences? Humans use like ten percent of their brain, which means that ninety percent of their potential is completely untapped, and I can’t help but wonder if the way we experience life/people is the same way.

      As for the “ignorance is bliss” statement, I think I was trying to articulate my confusion about whether or not you merely have to BELIEVE that you know someone to constitute a good relationship. I think it’s true that we’re never satisfied, but I also think that having a selective knowledge of the person you’re in a relationship with is satisfactory to a lot of people, because they just don’t think about how deep their level of understanding of their significant other actually is. I could know my partner as well as some other person knows their partner, but that doesn’t mean that I actually know them in a definitive sense. Which I guess goes back to the question of untapped potential for human experience.

  2. Can we hang out? You are thinking and that is cool and I want to think with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s