but can see in me
things which I don’t see myself
a kind of paradox
Adapted from the line, It’s a kind of paradox. He’s very self-involved, but also very able to see the subtle character of others. He can see in me things which I don’t see myself” in an article in a recent New Yorker Magazine, titled, The First Rule Is Not to Lie: Emmanuel Carrere’s bracingly personal reportage confounds France’s literary establishment by Ian Parker.
I am not sure what it means.
Who has a truly accurate image of how they appear to other people.
Who doesn’t listen to a recording of their voice and not say, that’s not me.
When I worked in TV, occasionally I found myself on TV.
I thought, that is not how I look.
Not how I look in a mirror.
And I was right.
What I saw, what anyone sees in a mirror is reveresered.
What I saw on TV was the way people saw me.
And they probably saw things in me that I don’t see myself.
Where is the paradox?
Or is the paradox that the person doing the see was self absorbed and so self absorbed so that their ability to see anything in anybody other than themselves, let alone things they other person didn’t see, is paradoxical.
To paraphrase Robert Kennedy, some folks look at things and ask why while some folks dream great dreams and ask, why not?
No Haiku For You 