10/07/2004: "It ain't over til its over"

music: Bear Snoring
mood: So very sorrowful

I am baffled often times, as often as I am intrigued, by the English (American) language. Especially in my attempt to study other languages I have found certain phrases or uses of words to be of particular confusion. Take the phrase...."to be over it". What does that MEAN? I think of a hurdle...not a metaphorical one ( or maybe I do) but a physical hurdle. When you are "OVER IT" it is behind you. But it's still there, and the hurdle it's self doesn't change, nor do I when I jump over it. I suppose I could feel better when I get over it, as if I have achieved something, but really, I only have a nother hurdle to get over, what's the point. By being over it, nothing has really changed, in fact it only gets harder, a more intense test of endurance awaits. But you get to the end you say, but do you? How many races to your run? By getting over it, I've moved forward, I have honestly, I can mostly control the tears, but what is the benefit of getting over it. In the process of getting over a hurdle you are momentarily above it. You perhaps have a different prespective, look at it from a few different angles, but ultimately, nothing has changed, it's mostly illusion. Hurdles still there.

"I'm through it".is an interesting one too. A swamp comes to mind. I may be through it, I may be at the other end and out of it, but it is no doubt all over me. OVER. How can a swamp be all over me, when I'm still stuck with the swamp?

I'm not over it despite jumping up down and all around the hurdle in search of the finality of over. And maybe I fear a future of and emotional zombie like state of "over". When something is over, one should get over it, but often times endings and beginnings are so blurred I can't tell when or more importantly why it's OVER. What constitutes an over, when one or more parties/objects is not OVER IT. Only one can be over something at the same time can't they? But should "over" be mutual? And then I think, there would be no need to run if it there was agreement. Maybe "over" neccessitates having to move, make a move, move away while one things stands still and allows itself to become over. Unless they are beside...I'll come back to "beside" soon. It's all very complex.

So I'm not over. I boycott that phrase and phaze of "progress" becuase it is hypocritical, repressive, and dillusional. I am more honest with myself than that for the most part. I will find a more appropriate preposition or whatever part of speech the things you can do to a tree are. I was in and then forced out, but even being pushed out pushed me IN something else. I was in deep, then I was in deeper when I wasn't in, but I guess I was still in or else I wouldn't have been able to be deeper in that other thing. I used to be under it, or rather is was on top of me, smothering and sufficating, weighting me down. I got out from underneath it I think, though at times it remains difficult to tell. I know that some will judge and say I am around it. I have done my share of going around and around to be sure. I think I am out of that phaze...or very nearly. I feel I approach being beside it. In otherwords it may not go away. It may be within reach all my life. And that is a frighteningly depressing and simultaneously a potentially comforting concept if it were true. BEside doesn't leave it behind, it doesn't walk all over it, It doesn't smother, or delude. Progress in healing I think is as much about being able to walk beside it, and have that be okay, and to know it's there, but to also know you can walk beside many than it is being over.

And then again, maybe I wouldn't say that if I were in fact over it. Maybe the whole point is to fool yourself into thinking over is better. It just sounds more bitter not better to me. But then again it's all painful at this point so what does the label really matter other than to give me something to babble about.