Wednesday, August 11, 2010




: having or expressing little or no sensibility : unemotional

I have to admit being a bit confused at the above definition. My initial thoughts were: But if you're unemotional, wouldn't that render you more sensible? I made the mistake of equating Sense with Reason, when I suppose the implication of sense suggests a literal connection with one's senses. And being Reasonable or Rational (it feels right to capitalize these concepts) does not necessarily apply to the senses; a sensory reaction would then be more emotional. In addition, the archaic definition of sensible is sensitive, now an obsolete link, but perhaps some residue remains. I've put it all together.

When one removes the influences of the senses, one arrives at STOLID—the impassive, the phlegmatic, the apathetic. A friend of mine was recently dating a guy I might describe as STOLID. One night the three of us went out for dessert. While perusing the menu, he seemed to have no opinions. He kept saying to my friend, "I'll share whatever you're having." He didn't say much through the night and responded often with shrugs. When I asked him, in an attempt to pull him into the conversation, "So, what's your story?" He grunted out an, "I don't really know."

I wonder if general STOLIDNESS is related to a mental condition. I mean, I suppose there are varying degrees of the quality, but if you pass a point after which someone would describe you as STOLID, seriously, what's going on in your head? Were you born STOLID? Or have you endured X number of life events that render you so? Is it related somehow to being jaded or emotionally worn down? So many questions.

Non-sequitur: I always thought this word was pronounced with a long O: stow-lid. The phonetics make me think of my New England past:

Yo, guy, yah totally STAAHHLID.

No comments:

Post a Comment