Posted by medlib on February 22, 2002, at 1:33:48
In reply to Thank you!, posted by Mark H. on February 19, 2002, at 20:31:06
Hi Mark--
It's very good to see you emerge once again from your seasonal hibernation. Yeah, I'm still around--often, if no longer always, or for as long. But, since I read at least 100x faster than I write, I do little of the latter. Thanks for asking about me.
I was surprised when I saw your Q, and I wondered why you asked. Though undoubtedly the easiest to determine, chronological age seems to me the least useful of the "ages" humans calculate. Physiological, mental, emotional, social and experiential ages are all better descriptors which have greater utility. Unlike the others, chronological age has no individual predictability, cannot be changed or remedied, and is used primarily for governmental identification and social stereotyping. So, I simply do not provide personal statistics unless required by law or necessary to obtain something I want more than privacy.
Sorry for the self-indulgent explanation. Maybe it's your philosophical bent, or the fact that this forum's members are no strangers to the effects of stereotyping. In any case, it's not something I feel really strongly about, just a matter of internal consistency, I guess.
Depression, for me, has strong Rip Van Winkle characteristics. If I ever felt younger than my chronological age, it would be because I've lived only a fraction of the time I've been alive; my experiential age is barely past the teens.
Now, if I just had Noa-like economy of expression, it might have occurred to me sooner simply to fall back on my favorite social snottism, "I'll forgive you for asking if you'll forgive me for not answering."
More midnight meanderings from medlib
(I *do* try to refrain from alliterating, I just don't succeed very often.)
poster:medlib
thread:18483
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20020214/msgs/18682.html