Strange Table Fellows

Strange Table Fellows

It was an odd trio: the crystalized divinity, the crystalized adversary and me.

I feared more than wondered why and how I’d been included remembering Abrahamic tales of Job but the fact was, I was there because I was actually fond of both of them and, in the myriad wanderings of my mind, amidst my fanciful conversations with myself, I’d not infrequently included them, speculated about them, sought out their real motives and motivations. Sought out contrarian possibilities. Of course, given the nature of prevailing beliefs, contrarian leanings involved much more emphasis on seeking to understand the adversary while playing down what I perceived of as divine propaganda, after all, divinity’s pretensions rarely held up to logical analysis, hence the emphasis on faith, something of which my supply was sorely limited. The adversary’s pretensions were largely unknown, almost always having been presented from the perspective of divinity’s believers.

Still, there I was, wherever and whenever there was.

I wondered whether or not they trusted each other, understood each other, really knew each other in a meaningful manner. Probably not; they were too involved with rationalization, a fundament of faith, a concept on which both placed a great deal of emphasis, though never quite agreeing on its substance. Oddly, though I was of course, in both infinite and eternal terms, the least important of the three, they both seemed to trust and perhaps, even to like me. Or at least that’s what they encouraged me to feel.

We sat in comfortable chairs around a comfortable coffee table, snacks and drinks haphazardly, not arranged, but placed, a sort of evolutive exercise, at least from my perspective. I don’t think we were involved in the great game which so many of us assume that ancient odd couple is perpetually involved in; my perception was that we were really just, … well, … hanging out. The conversation was trivial but didn’t really involve trivial subjects.

Crystalized?

Good question, that’s how I perceived them because they appeared to be a synthesis of all their archetypes rather than the representation of any one of them. They may each in fact have been a vast collection of archetypes, perhaps, … on second thought, ,,, probably infinite, but represented in my limited imagining as individual entities; kind of like us really, collections of billions of individual cells sharing, at least for that instant, a single collective consciousness.

That reminded me of my perception that each of us is a dynamic collection of souls, flitting in time and space and host bodies, something that explains a lot of human actions and reactions, at least to me, especially those involving women with whom I’ve shared intimacy. Not that it’s a feminine quality, it’s just that I’ve only shared truly profound intimacy with women, …

And perhaps with my two table mates.

I wondered which of the three of us was the strangest?
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2015; all rights reserved

Advertisements