Skip to main content

The way I define the space around me makes me a ‘lodger’ or otherwise. The plain fact that I live with my near and dear ones is not a necessary determinant that decides my status. I can take such a narrative forward in so many routes. For instance, I can consider myself a lodger on this planet from point A in time to point B in time. This line leads me on to astronomical, astrological, cosmic, environmental and existential dimensions of narration. I am trying to find out what doesn’t make me a ‘lodger’ if at all such a condition exists.

Yet another route I can take is the “No man is an island” argument which leads to religious, political and social ideologies. To lodge, in itself has a period quality attached to it. Like music, it can be a temporal expression orchestrated by its transient  nature.

The other extreme is I am an ‘owner’ of the space that I am bounded by. The dual aspects of ‘owner’ and ‘lodger’ seems to be the boundaries with different levels lf “ownerness” and’ lodgerness’ tucked away in between. Many writers have worked extensively on the stranger, the outsider, the misfit and such other existential forms of being and non-being. How to come up with a definition of being and other thought categories which seems relatively fresh and sounds new.

Or, is the dual poles of ‘ownerness’ and ‘lodgerness’ in a constant flux which a nerd could compress into an equation. Time is central to any question of ‘ownerness’ and ‘lodgerness’. Time is mostly felt and not essentially visible like a colour. I ponder over such seemingly unproductive ideas like pouring ‘X’ ml of time into a beaker using a test tube and may be doing experiments with its properties.

Limited by my senses and the walls they build around my vision, I understand it is not easy to travel along that path. How to define “ownerness” and “lodgerness” continues to bother me.

I consider myself to be a human born out of mammalian processes. When i myself am not very sure about how I perceive the world around me, I cannot have the luxury of imagining how other species like birds, animals and plants feel the sense of their’ lodgerness’ or ‘ownerness.’ The theme remains the same. I have to go on resolving the questions of my lodgerness instinct and the ownerness instincts to sustain  the boundaries of accepted control.

I know, for a given time I can own a space. “Lodgerness” might mean a shorter time span and “ownerness” indicates a longer one. So, even “ownerness” has a time limit. The representation of both the states could be a linear short time or linear long time. I can own or lodge a space within time limits set by may be an unseen energy. In the material sense, I am a lodger or owner of someone, some place or something. But can I own time in itself or time and space together and both at once.

Here comes the emotional, relational and affective components of ownerness and lodgerness. When I lodge, it is considered in

Un- authentic. Yet when I own it seems to have some relative authenticity.

Lodgerness or ownerness have to be linked together with one single attribute, from the emotional dimension. I would want to know that dimension. Togetherness, engagement in total, attraction, and such emotional routes could be ways of owning both space and fine at once.

Hostility, hatred, enviousness and such other features too enable to own space and time but with some jerks, making things linear into matters elliptical. But this enquiry even to me is not very satisfying… These reflections are the products of thoughts. What is the stuff that thoughts are made of? I consider this question less difficult than the problem of the time… And this question is lingering,

Searching for an answer.


DISCLAIMER : The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the GLF Circle.

G Balachandra Menon

G Balachandra Menon is a writer based in Kochi. His writings encompass a wide range of subjects covering arts, cinema, essays, short stories etc.

One Comment

  • John Mathew says:

    Mr. Menon, You have made some deep thought provoking points on the subject. Having read this, I am tempted to come to a very simple conclusion for an answer. Rules of nature. You have posed a very interesting question. ” wonder what the birds, animals and plants feel about Lodgerness and ownerness?” All their behavior patterns show us that they don’t feel such emotions. Even if they feel, it seems like they are least affected by such factors. And their understanding of time seems to be also limited to the mechanics of the species survival. Like building nest, hatching, migrating etc. They think less and they are contented during their span of life. This brings us to a reality that we can’t ignore. Deeper knowledge and understanding the principles of nature as we know now, paves the way for lingering and disturbing thoughts. If we learn from nature, it is best not to approach such thoughts in an emotional way, but rather reach a humorous conclusion, taking in the vibrations from nature.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.