REFER TO GREY: Contemplations by Robert Greigos © 2007-2026

The air is hot, oppressive.
A man enters from the left.
He pauses and stares across the room.
He’s sweating. He wipes his brow with the
back of his hand, and closes his eyes.
He remains like that for several seconds, thinking,
then opens his eyes, drops his hand,
and stares critically toward the window at his right.
He then abruptly and determinedly strides toward it.

Two strides on, he stops, clinches his teeth,
and turns about face,
He remains determined
but hesitates. Still hesitates,
then finally closes his eyes,
throws his head back,
and clinches his fists tight.
He’s pondering, mulling deeply.
Frustrated emotional energy bristles from him.

Finally relaxing, he reopens his eyes
and turns toward the chair,
moves toward it, turns round and sits,
shoulders forward, elbows on his knees,
head hanging down.

There is no breeze from the open window,
strong light from the window persists,
the air continues its oppressive heat and humidity.
The man remains quiet for quite some time,
head bowed, sweat dampening
his skin and clothing.
His breathing gradually slows.

A picture? A moment? A tableau?

What can be known from the mere witnessing of these imagined events,
from the mere witnessing of this imagined man under adverse
environmental conditions and inwardly experienced emotional stress?

Anything? Anything at all?

Eventually, light from the window begins to fade,
a slight evening breeze begins to stir the air,
the man raises his head, sits up,
clinches his teeth again, and
glowers toward the window.

He’s come to some kind of tentative decision,
but this time with visibly cooler emotions.

He rises from the chair,
turns toward the door,
and leaves the room.

We do not see him again.
His life, his problems, his successes or failures
in dealing with them remain unwitnessed by us.

Is that fact a loss for us? Or a gain?
Or maybe neither? Or perhaps both?

Such is the experience of art.


If we are optimists, the experience of such art can be a worthwhile experience, prompting us to consider ourselves in that other’s predicament, maybe feel his emotions, his frustrations, perhaps his rage, and eventually his resolve.

If we are skeptical pessimists, most likely the experience of such art is bewildering and frustrating, not something worth expending any time or effort with at all.

If we are women, we might feel irked, slighted, would instead prefer imagining such a tableau featuring a woman, sharing her emotions, her thoughts, her frustration, perhaps her triumphant resolve at having arrived at a conclusive plan of action.

If we are men, many of us might actually be more interested imagining such a tableau featuring a woman, too. And isn’t that interesting?


What actually can be said of conflict? Is it normal or abnormal, healthy or unhealthy? We all experience it, from the first moments beyond our birth to the frustrations of old age. Some of us relish conflict for its opportunity to triumph and dominate. Others avoid conflict at all cost. Is either better off by virtue of their approach? Is there a more healthy middle ground?

There was an article in the New York Times recently featuring a conversation with a psychologist who had just published a book on the topic of conflict within relationships: Priya Parker and her book “The Art of Fighting”. I have not read either that full conversation or her book, but the topic has piqued my interest.

My thoughts immediately went back to a somewhat elderly lady I once met. She and I were members of an artist’s group who jointly showed their work in a shared gallery. We each took turns by pairs “manning the store” so to speak. That particular day was our turn.

She was a very interesting lady, quite accomplished in a number of fields, and had been married I think twice. The last to great mutual success and fulfillment, lasting many years. I eventually met him. He was impressive also.

She poked at me right from the start of our day together, probing me with all sorts of personal questions while making critical comments along the way. The experience quite amused me. I eventually asked her if she was intentionally trying to start an argument. And do you know what her answer to me was?

“Of course I am. Arguing is better than sex.” Her eyes glittered with mischief.

I almost cracked up. But then I thought back over the relationships I had known. And I couldn’t help but conclude that of those relationships, from my parents onward, arguing seemed to be quite the norm. And that isn’t to say I thought arguing, as a rule, to be dysfunctional. Because it actually seemed to me that arguing betrayed both intellectual and emotional health, along with strength of character within those doing the arguing. They each had something inside of them that they insisted on getting out. To my mind, an admirable quality. And when the other party actually listened and tried to understand, and then and only then argued their opposition with equal conviction, the result was quite often final agreement and cooperative effort toward enacting the results of their mutual agreement. Not an insignificant few of those relationships actually became stronger, seemingly because through arguing they’d developed a stronger mutual respect for each other, become more committed to caring for each other, and enjoyed more success as a consequence of mutually beneficial coordinated efforts.

But is arguing always “better than sex”? No, I don’t think so. Because, the point of some arguments is to diminish and subjugate the opposing party, be damned the truth, the consequence to others, or even the mental health of persons initiating such arguments.

On the other hand, some folks are decidedly better at arguing than others while those others may end up feeling quite intimidated and inadequate, even though there is no intent to abuse on the part of the better arguer. That situation does not bode well for a healthy and sustainable relationship either.

Are there ways to become better at arguing, ways to help a poorer arguer become a better one? That psychologist mentioned above may have some useful ideas along those lines, I can’t say. But in thinking back to my very early schooling, I think I’d hypothesize that the journey to developing competence at arguing can get off to a pretty good start standing up to a school yard bully.

I remember being encouraged to do just that by a mature friend of my parents when I was about age 6. I was more the shy type back then. And a neighbor about my age enjoyed tormenting me. On encouragement from that elder friend, I decided one day to physically take my tormenter down, literally. I rubbed his nose in the dirt. He was not only surprised. He and I actually became friends after that. We’d established a kind of mutual respect for one another that lasted well into school days. And, what I learned then about arguing was how important it is to stand up for myself, something I would suggest here is a good starting point for becoming a competent arguer.

Further, within traditional schooling, not always thought of as engaging or beneficial by students of today, were all those exercises in English class analyzing and discussing poems and literature, and trying to write argumentative essays. Then in high school there were exercises constructing proofs in mathematics, experiments to test hypotheses in science class, and invitations to join the chess club and the debate society. All exercises that probably helped many of us to become better at arguing our own experience, point of view, and well considered ideas today.

But are any of those modes of educational development remedially useful and appropriate for helping one of today’s adults who finds him or herself with poor arguing skills? Not something I could attest to.

However, a cultural trend within our current era that does seem to have taken hold, where adults and even teenagers are concerned, is acquiring a gun. A solution that might seem to be a sure-fire way to win an argument, but definitely not one that predictably results in the development of healthful and sustainable relationships. And that truth likely holds for relations between and amongst nation states, as well as on a more personal level.

Pick your fights, your arguments, judiciously. And do so not to win decisively, but to arrive at the best possible solution to problems affecting everyone involved. We’ll all be better off for it.