On Monday, I was chatting with two dear friends and I wound up saying something I'd been relatively scared of saying out loud up until this point. In fact, I said two things that I wasn't super comfortable telling others about.
I decided that's bunk, and I should probably be open and aware of the things I'm otherwise scared to admit.
So if you want to avoid a big ol' look into my crazy psyche, now's the time to bail on this blog post.
I want to get married. Like, really badly. I don't know if it's my biological clock, the fact that others are getting married around me, or what exactly, but sometime in the last year, I started thinking a lot more about settling down. I know I'm no where near ready for something like this, but it strikes me as odd that I could go from being terrified of long-term commitment and getting "stuck" to just wanting the chase to be done with.
I'm not comfortable with hugging too many people. In fact, physical touch in general makes me mildly uncomfortable. By and large, it's male touch that makes me more uncomfortable, and again, I don't really know why. It's possible there's an orientation fear in there and my brain is scared of opening myself up to possibilities.
I'm highly obsessive. Ever since high school, when there's something I'm relatively passionate about, it gets stuck in my mind all day. Few minutes go by where I don't think about whatever it is I'm obsessed with that day. Today, it's the game I'm designing and how I can try to finagle the mechanics such that my intent is achieved while function is not limited. Often, it's the women I'm interested in. My obsession is linked in some way to my anxiety in that I get overly anxious and paranoid when I obsess about my social connections. Even with my platonic friends, I find myself thinking too much and too often about their thoughts that I cannot have access to. I am a glutton for knowledge of a very particular kind; I love knowing what people are thinking, and when I suspect that the knowledge I have therein is lacking or that someone is deceiving me about their thoughts, I obsess over it to a high degree. An unhealthy degree, actually.
My intent is to talk to my psychiatrist about this and hopefully see what curbing my anxiety does to help this issue.
I worry that my moderate views on feminism make a good portion of my friends view me with disdain and/or incredulity. I cannot blame them if such is the case. I seem to be actively challenging everyone from every philosophical standpoint. And not necessarily because I think every standpoint is wrong, but because I think every group has flaws, and it's far more difficult to point out flaws from within (even this post is taking a lot out of me). Of course, the catch is that by not being steeped in a culture that I'm critiquing, I may be missing integral facts or ideas that would ultimately eliminate my criticisms. And therein lies the next admission
I doubt myself almost 100% of the time when it comes to matters of philosophy. I speak because it's the only way to start a discussion and get thoughts out, but I'm never certain about the truth value of my logic. My self-doubt seems to temper some humility, but it's entirely possible, then, that thinking I'm humble as a result of my self-doubt is entirely biased and egotistical. I am more cautious than those who are certain of themselves, but does that make me more correct? More wise? More capable? My instinctual thought is probably, but there again would be egotism incarnate. Socrates said that his only wisdom was in his knowledge of his own ignorance. However, people who are certain achieve results. People who are certain have followings, ambition, drive, passion. Whether or not it is wise, it works. So I must again doubt my own path.
I've been starting conversations about sex with people I absolutely shouldn't be as a result of hormones and loneliness.
It's super duper stupid and lead to the disaster in my life known as Shea. And still I allow myself to make these terrible choices.
I have not been able to reconcile my sincerity with my love of teasing. For example, on this blog? With my brother? When prompted specifically for it? I am as sincere as I know how to be. I watch what I say and calculate each word arduously, ensuring I don't miscommunicate any part of my message if at all possible. However, in other contexts, I tease and I play, which often comes in the form of playful insults between friends. The result of that is being seen as asshole. I am not comfortable with that label because I do think that I'm sincere when it counts 99% of the time. However, I also don't often let people know that they can turn to me and that I want to hear their thoughts (both are true). I don't often give people the reassurance they probably want or need. This is something I'm trying to work on, but have pretty obvious shortcomings on.
I'm incredibly possessive, and I don't know if it's from a lack of trust or total insecurity, anxiety, or what exactly. I am viscerally discomforted by the idea of people I care about doing things I don't "approve" of, even if it doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form. The knowledge that someone is doing something I don't want them to is enough to make me stressed. This is an obvious problem in a great number of ways, and I wish I knew what steps I could take in order to accept that the only life that's mine is my own.
I'm not nearly the strategist I pretend to be. I can't calculate two moves ahead. Rather, my strength lays in my ability to adapt to a situation as it unfolds, making it seem like I can predict actions before they happen. In reality, it's just a decent reaction speed. This is where my brother has me beat by a mile.
I worry that the fact that I basically don't read books ever makes people see me as uncultured, unintelligent, boring, lazy, and/or uninteresting. This definitely stems from my lack of self-esteem.
I'm absolutely terrified of becoming my father in so many ways. One of them is something I've already become; emotionally manipulative. I don't intend to do it (that absolutely doesn't make it okay), but my feelings of inadequacy and self-hate have allowed me to control situations in ways that are externally rewarding, thus reinforcing the behavior. I have been deliberately trying very hard to nip these behaviors in the bud, but I'm scared that any expression of self-doubt (like this blog post) is seen now as an attempt to manipulate my environment. Moreover, I'm scared that any expression like that IS an attempt to manipulate my environment unconsciously.
I worry that my perspective is neither sought, nor wanted, nor appreciated when it's given. I worry it's not my place to give that perspective in the first place. What right do I, a straight, white male, have to give an opinion on the hardships anyone else experiences? Or are all perspectives valuable in some context or another? Are people allowed to expect others not to offer their opinion when it's unsolicited?
Am I drifting away from my friends? Are they drifting away from me? Does that upset them at all? Does it upset me at all?
I worry over the opinions people have about me being a picky eater. I worry about causing inconvenience, stress, exasperation, and judgment by my near refusal to try new things until the last month.
Despite the fact that I choose my words carefully when I'm sending a deliberate message that I'm invested in, whenever I need to write a paper or a poem or what have you, I just wing it. I put virtually no thought into it. Ramshackled links of words and ideas that sound mildly good in my head, that I often never look back at a second time.
I don't want to open up to individual people, because I fear they won't have time, interest, energy, or care enough for me. So, I rarely let people in to the private thoughts I have. As a result, I can see myself possibly turning into the woman I take the most inspiration from; someone who's too aware and too afraid to be vulnerable for the potential damage it can cause. I want desperately to be able to be vulnerable, but there are always roadblocks and excuses not to.
That's all for today I think. Lots of thoughts careening around- must decompress.
This is not a plea for attention from anyone. This is my desire to be more vulnerable and open about my thoughts, and the best way to start is to be open to the nebulous entity known as the internet. Then I can move on to being open to my friends, family, and loved ones.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
Out With the Old...
It wasn't exactly a new year's resolution, since I don't feel like self-improvement should be set to the calendar, but I decided to try on a new attitude recently. Inspired by my trip to Venice and someone who neither tried to influence me nor who is likely to read this blog, it seemed the perfect time to start trying new things.
In particular, new foods have been the main driving force here. For those who know me well, I'm a terribly picky eater. I'm actually uncomfortable with the idea of eating food I'm not familiar with. Like, it stresses me out badly. So this has been big for me.
Black ink risotto
Fried calamari
Sausage pizza
Shot of vodka
A number of mysterious Venetian chocolates
Peanuts (for someone who loves peanut butter, I know how absurd this is)
Sunflower butter fake-Reese's.
I also complimented a flight attendant who had a cute hat/haircut combo while stuck in JFK for 9 hours.
It's a small start, but it's valuable to me. This attitude helped me to do something I never would've done before now last night; I went to a Reddit meetup at a stranger's house for boardgames. My roommate and a good friend of ours went along with, but it was actually a great time. The host was a really down-to-earth guy who seemed polite, fun, interesting, and comfortable.
It's not easy, but it's important to my development, and I shouldn't have waited this long to start pushing out of my bubble. Seriously, this is terrifying. But, as with all things, it gets easier every time I push myself.
Given my philosophy that complacency and stagnancy are incredibly dangerous and basically at the heart of human fault, it has been a long-standing hypocrisy of mine to refuse to try new foods, and to a lesser extent, new things in general. I do not believe that humankind can progress without knowing what options exist to it; what ways of living haven't been explored; what perspectives remain unexamined. We are creatures of habit, there's no doubt about this. And in fact, some philosophers have suggested that habitual living is ideal, since it allows us to spend our brainpower on "higher thought" rather than the mundane aspects of day-to-day living. However, I don't believe that it's ever healthy to take for granted the environment that we're currently in. If we fail to constantly re-examine our situations, then we're going to miss the subtle changes of hue and shape in the landscape surrounding us. While subtle, these changes can nevertheless be incredibly important. Even when our world appears to be unchanging, it's excellent practice to step back and evaluate what/who it is that surrounds you, whether or not you're happy, what changes you could be making to your life for the better, and where you intend on going in the near future.
This is a very pragmatic philosophy, in keeping with my worldview.
You may figure out the mysteries of the universe, or come up with a unified theory of justice, but if you're not happy; if you're not growing; if you're not experiencing life, then you're still going to wither away. We seek habits because they are comforting, but we thrive on change. Change fertilizes our soil, giving us wild new ideas from which we can learn, develop, and help to fertilize others. Not only that, but when we accept the myriad perspectives in the world as viable, our fear and prejudices begin to wane. Our hatred is replaced with curiosity and intrigue. Passion and love.
I may not be very good at it yet, but I'm trying to embrace this change.
It's important to me at least.
In particular, new foods have been the main driving force here. For those who know me well, I'm a terribly picky eater. I'm actually uncomfortable with the idea of eating food I'm not familiar with. Like, it stresses me out badly. So this has been big for me.
Black ink risotto
Fried calamari
Sausage pizza
Shot of vodka
A number of mysterious Venetian chocolates
Peanuts (for someone who loves peanut butter, I know how absurd this is)
Sunflower butter fake-Reese's.
I also complimented a flight attendant who had a cute hat/haircut combo while stuck in JFK for 9 hours.
It's a small start, but it's valuable to me. This attitude helped me to do something I never would've done before now last night; I went to a Reddit meetup at a stranger's house for boardgames. My roommate and a good friend of ours went along with, but it was actually a great time. The host was a really down-to-earth guy who seemed polite, fun, interesting, and comfortable.
It's not easy, but it's important to my development, and I shouldn't have waited this long to start pushing out of my bubble. Seriously, this is terrifying. But, as with all things, it gets easier every time I push myself.
Given my philosophy that complacency and stagnancy are incredibly dangerous and basically at the heart of human fault, it has been a long-standing hypocrisy of mine to refuse to try new foods, and to a lesser extent, new things in general. I do not believe that humankind can progress without knowing what options exist to it; what ways of living haven't been explored; what perspectives remain unexamined. We are creatures of habit, there's no doubt about this. And in fact, some philosophers have suggested that habitual living is ideal, since it allows us to spend our brainpower on "higher thought" rather than the mundane aspects of day-to-day living. However, I don't believe that it's ever healthy to take for granted the environment that we're currently in. If we fail to constantly re-examine our situations, then we're going to miss the subtle changes of hue and shape in the landscape surrounding us. While subtle, these changes can nevertheless be incredibly important. Even when our world appears to be unchanging, it's excellent practice to step back and evaluate what/who it is that surrounds you, whether or not you're happy, what changes you could be making to your life for the better, and where you intend on going in the near future.
This is a very pragmatic philosophy, in keeping with my worldview.
You may figure out the mysteries of the universe, or come up with a unified theory of justice, but if you're not happy; if you're not growing; if you're not experiencing life, then you're still going to wither away. We seek habits because they are comforting, but we thrive on change. Change fertilizes our soil, giving us wild new ideas from which we can learn, develop, and help to fertilize others. Not only that, but when we accept the myriad perspectives in the world as viable, our fear and prejudices begin to wane. Our hatred is replaced with curiosity and intrigue. Passion and love.
I may not be very good at it yet, but I'm trying to embrace this change.
It's important to me at least.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Tunnelvision and You
Alright, I'm gonna' start this one off nice and aggressively:
Feminism-
MRA-
Both of your groups have a lot of members who have some nasty-ass tunnelvision, and it's pissing me off.
I get that you feel disenfranchised for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise. I get that many of your gripes have a place at the discussion table. And I get that, above all else, as a white, straight(ish) male, I will never understand the pain, fear, and discomfort many people go through on a daily basis. So whatever I have to say now is being colored with that bias. Feel free to call me out on it at any point.
This article on cyber harassment, threats, and bullying has got me mildly infuriated. Not because it's suggesting that men bully women and that women don't feel welcome on the internet. Both of those are true and I'm not about to debate them at all.
What upsets me is the framing of this issue; as men vs. women. This classic trope that feminism has a tendency to push, which is fair for a great many reasons, not the least of which being that there's a huge discrimination gap resulting from the power differential between men and women.
However, this trope has one really nasty, glaring flaw:
It ignores everyone else.
If the next civil rights movement is for women on the internet, what happens to the LGBQ community? What about transgendered individuals who have a hard enough time being heard in the realm of feminism as it is? What about ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities? Disabled persons? Overweight individuals? People who don't fit the standard model of attractiveness?
This isn't a men vs. women issue. That's a symptom of the issue. The issue is that our culture is divisive, cruel, unrelenting, othering, and full of asshole tendencies. Not just our culture, but humanity itself seems to have this problem.
To frame this another way, let's look at this like a pyramid.
It's not my favorite visual example, but it'll have to do. The problem I have is when people try to fight the "system" of the pyramid, but taking one or multiple sections and trying to duke it out with the top section over issues of ascendance. On its face, it looks like a valiant quest that is both justifiable and reasonable.
And to some extent, it absolutely is. This system sucks. It's shitty, and it needs to go away. Forever.
However, what's frustrating me is the methodology here; fighting individual sections of the pyramid against each other is going to accomplish one of two things, if history has taught us anything:
1. The winner of the fight is going to subjugate the loser by forcing them lower on the pyramid.
2. The fighting will eventually cease and the lower section(s) will move up closer to the higher section.
If you'll notice, neither option, historically, has fought the actual pyramid. This is because of what I like to call the "I got mine, fuck you" syndrome that people have. Everyone in the lower echelons of society is all about equality... Until they're equal. Then they stop caring because it no longer personally affects them.
This results in things like bigotry against lesbians and transgendered individuals within the feminist community, racial division amongst males, "manliness" divisions amongst males, cultural and genetic divisions, sexual and identity divisions, religious divisions, opinion divisions, etc.
I'm not saying we need to stop fighting for equality; heaven forbid. I'm saying that you're all fighting the system using the rules that the system set up. A fundamentally counterproductive and counter intuitive endeavor. You're going to change the location of the pyramid's sections, but you're not changing the existence of the sections or the pyramid itself. As a result, when the fighting is over, you're going to have people on the bottom and people on the top, same as always.
This is a problem with the culture of humanity; we do not empathize. We do not sympathize. We do not give concessions. We do not hold out hands. We do not assist. We strive for ourselves and no others. I can't believe how much of a Jesus approach I'm taking on this, but come on people. We have to frame this issue as one inherent in the way we raise our children. Inherent in the way we treat our peers. Inherent in our social structures, political structures, economic structures, and infrastructures. This is not a problem that can be dealt with by individually assailing one problem with equality that you feel passionate about, it's a problem that must be dealt with by stepping back and re-evaluating what it is that we mean when we say "equality." Re-evaluating our own personal philosophies.
We all like to act as though we're for total equality and a peaceful world, but when was the last time you were an asshole to someone? Anyone at all- doesn't matter if you think they deserved it or not. All the better if they didn't deserve it though. When was the last time you judged someone? Made fun of someone? Looked down on someone?
It sucks to admit this, but even we "enlightened" are so incredibly guilty. When was the last time I saw a homeless person and treated them like a true human being with dreams, thoughts, emotions, fears, pains, and joys? I'm not sure I ever have, and it's making my soul bleed a little.
When was the last time I had a racist thought, even though I knew it was wrong?
When was the last time I judged someone for their taste in religion, music, TV, entertainment, books, fashion, or thought in general?
When was the last time I judged someone for their ignorance? For their cowardice? For their anger? For any shortcoming?
When was the last time I judged someone based purely on physical appearance?
I'm actually a little disgusted with myself when I answer these questions in earnest.
Can you say you're any better?
Every time we perpetuate these thoughts, we reinforce the foundations upon which the pyramid was built. The foundation that people are not equal. That we are inherently different from each other. That there's an "us" and a "them." That our sins are fundamentally different from the sins of others.
A war using the rules of the game just legitimizes the game's existence. (To abruptly switch metaphors)
If you want to destroy "chess," you can't simply win at chess. It may make you better at chess. Even the best at chess. But being the best does not mean that chess has been conquered. Only that its presence has been legitimized by your behavior. To dismantle chess, you can't use the rules that have been laid out for you. You have to pick up the board and put it in the proverbial trashcan.
I cannot say how exactly humanity can stop playing by the rules of this wretched game; only that we are indeed playing by the rules of it, and that by extension, we are not harming the existence of the game at all.
So you, MRAs; have at me.
And you, feminists; have at me.
Tell me I don't understand, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am ignorant, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am biased, and I will agree with you. Tell me my methods and my answers are incomplete, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am a hypocrite, and I will agree with you. Tell me that I am part of the problem, and I will agree with you.
I accept this. Maybe it will not be the necessary first step to changing how I and how humanity functions. But I believe it's the first step to fully recognizing the faulty structure in which we function. Maybe then we can destroy the game.
Feminism-
MRA-
Both of your groups have a lot of members who have some nasty-ass tunnelvision, and it's pissing me off.
I get that you feel disenfranchised for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise. I get that many of your gripes have a place at the discussion table. And I get that, above all else, as a white, straight(ish) male, I will never understand the pain, fear, and discomfort many people go through on a daily basis. So whatever I have to say now is being colored with that bias. Feel free to call me out on it at any point.
This article on cyber harassment, threats, and bullying has got me mildly infuriated. Not because it's suggesting that men bully women and that women don't feel welcome on the internet. Both of those are true and I'm not about to debate them at all.
What upsets me is the framing of this issue; as men vs. women. This classic trope that feminism has a tendency to push, which is fair for a great many reasons, not the least of which being that there's a huge discrimination gap resulting from the power differential between men and women.
However, this trope has one really nasty, glaring flaw:
It ignores everyone else.
If the next civil rights movement is for women on the internet, what happens to the LGBQ community? What about transgendered individuals who have a hard enough time being heard in the realm of feminism as it is? What about ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities? Disabled persons? Overweight individuals? People who don't fit the standard model of attractiveness?
This isn't a men vs. women issue. That's a symptom of the issue. The issue is that our culture is divisive, cruel, unrelenting, othering, and full of asshole tendencies. Not just our culture, but humanity itself seems to have this problem.
To frame this another way, let's look at this like a pyramid.
It's not my favorite visual example, but it'll have to do. The problem I have is when people try to fight the "system" of the pyramid, but taking one or multiple sections and trying to duke it out with the top section over issues of ascendance. On its face, it looks like a valiant quest that is both justifiable and reasonable.
And to some extent, it absolutely is. This system sucks. It's shitty, and it needs to go away. Forever.
However, what's frustrating me is the methodology here; fighting individual sections of the pyramid against each other is going to accomplish one of two things, if history has taught us anything:
1. The winner of the fight is going to subjugate the loser by forcing them lower on the pyramid.
2. The fighting will eventually cease and the lower section(s) will move up closer to the higher section.
If you'll notice, neither option, historically, has fought the actual pyramid. This is because of what I like to call the "I got mine, fuck you" syndrome that people have. Everyone in the lower echelons of society is all about equality... Until they're equal. Then they stop caring because it no longer personally affects them.
This results in things like bigotry against lesbians and transgendered individuals within the feminist community, racial division amongst males, "manliness" divisions amongst males, cultural and genetic divisions, sexual and identity divisions, religious divisions, opinion divisions, etc.
I'm not saying we need to stop fighting for equality; heaven forbid. I'm saying that you're all fighting the system using the rules that the system set up. A fundamentally counterproductive and counter intuitive endeavor. You're going to change the location of the pyramid's sections, but you're not changing the existence of the sections or the pyramid itself. As a result, when the fighting is over, you're going to have people on the bottom and people on the top, same as always.
This is a problem with the culture of humanity; we do not empathize. We do not sympathize. We do not give concessions. We do not hold out hands. We do not assist. We strive for ourselves and no others. I can't believe how much of a Jesus approach I'm taking on this, but come on people. We have to frame this issue as one inherent in the way we raise our children. Inherent in the way we treat our peers. Inherent in our social structures, political structures, economic structures, and infrastructures. This is not a problem that can be dealt with by individually assailing one problem with equality that you feel passionate about, it's a problem that must be dealt with by stepping back and re-evaluating what it is that we mean when we say "equality." Re-evaluating our own personal philosophies.
We all like to act as though we're for total equality and a peaceful world, but when was the last time you were an asshole to someone? Anyone at all- doesn't matter if you think they deserved it or not. All the better if they didn't deserve it though. When was the last time you judged someone? Made fun of someone? Looked down on someone?
It sucks to admit this, but even we "enlightened" are so incredibly guilty. When was the last time I saw a homeless person and treated them like a true human being with dreams, thoughts, emotions, fears, pains, and joys? I'm not sure I ever have, and it's making my soul bleed a little.
When was the last time I had a racist thought, even though I knew it was wrong?
When was the last time I judged someone for their taste in religion, music, TV, entertainment, books, fashion, or thought in general?
When was the last time I judged someone for their ignorance? For their cowardice? For their anger? For any shortcoming?
When was the last time I judged someone based purely on physical appearance?
I'm actually a little disgusted with myself when I answer these questions in earnest.
Can you say you're any better?
Every time we perpetuate these thoughts, we reinforce the foundations upon which the pyramid was built. The foundation that people are not equal. That we are inherently different from each other. That there's an "us" and a "them." That our sins are fundamentally different from the sins of others.
A war using the rules of the game just legitimizes the game's existence. (To abruptly switch metaphors)
If you want to destroy "chess," you can't simply win at chess. It may make you better at chess. Even the best at chess. But being the best does not mean that chess has been conquered. Only that its presence has been legitimized by your behavior. To dismantle chess, you can't use the rules that have been laid out for you. You have to pick up the board and put it in the proverbial trashcan.
I cannot say how exactly humanity can stop playing by the rules of this wretched game; only that we are indeed playing by the rules of it, and that by extension, we are not harming the existence of the game at all.
So you, MRAs; have at me.
And you, feminists; have at me.
Tell me I don't understand, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am ignorant, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am biased, and I will agree with you. Tell me my methods and my answers are incomplete, and I will agree with you. Tell me I am a hypocrite, and I will agree with you. Tell me that I am part of the problem, and I will agree with you.
I accept this. Maybe it will not be the necessary first step to changing how I and how humanity functions. But I believe it's the first step to fully recognizing the faulty structure in which we function. Maybe then we can destroy the game.
Monday, January 6, 2014
First Thoughts Upon Returning
Okay, I have a million thoughts now that I'm back in the states. Like, it's actually difficult to categorize how many things I have floating around out of reach.
So, instead of doing anything in-depth just yet, I'm going to make some general notes:
1. Everyone has rose-colored glasses for geographic locations and cultures. People don't realistically see the problems that a society has when they're in love with it.
2. Everyone in Italy smokes.
3. Everyone in Italy is far more formal and moderate than Americans. We're more extreme, either more or less eccentric than average. We're more emotive and expressive- more likely to be happy, angry, sad, etc. in public. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but I think it makes people far more boring.
4. Systems hold your hand in America for fear of accidentally leading you to believe that a stupid action is either safe or correct. Foreign lands don't seem to give a shit if you get lost because of horribly nonsensical signs and directions. Again, not necessarily good or bad, and frankly, I think America could stand to do a little less hand-holding. But the French? Oof. They're intentionally convoluted.
5. Everyone thinks they're better than everyone else. Moral of the story: We're all arrogant and pretentious fucks. We're all flawed. We're all opinionated, and we all think our opinions are best.
6. No one is fat outside of America.
7. Holy shit, foreign women are gorgeous.
8. Holy shit, foreign women with accents.
9. I am probably not likely to be terribly impressed by any nation. Each has its share of really absurd and stupid problems. Sure, Italians are more relaxed about life, but they're less driven, less motivated, less passionate. And sure, Americans are probably harder workers in general, but we're also workaholics with an unhealthy obsession for money and power, having idealized this notion of being "rich" and "making it." We allow our quest for material possessions to overshadow the simple quest for happiness and health. A positive psychologist's worst nightmare.
10. Venice's architecture is beautiful, but in all its grandeur, how many lives were ruined in its creation? How many lives were broken to create each church? How many buildings were used for subjugation, prejudice, and hatred? The history is fascinating, but it's also disgusting. By glossing over the ugly truths of history, we're complicit in their repetition in the present.
11. Every store in Venice is a mask store and/or a scarf store.
12. I have latched on to idle wishes and sentimentality where I must focus on practical endeavors and self-improvement.
13. Airports are the worst ever.
14. Ever.
15. Don't walk to the store in 0 degree weather and a foot of snow. It's a bad idea.
16. Venice was incredibly cool, and it was the experience of a lifetime, but not because any individual thing was gorgeous, or even because I got to get lost in the streets, but because I am tentatively learning that all places are awful in their own ways; sometimes subtle, and sometimes quite conspicuous.
17. Trying new things doesn't kill you. This one was important.
18. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a great movie with many thoughts about the intersectionality between human experiences creating life. It also addressed very human sentiments about death, relationships, starting over, finding meaning in life, and doing what makes you happy.
19. I love who I am, and I hope I do not doubt my worth as often anymore. If I never doubt my worth, I'll become complacent and egotistical.
20. The food isn't any better in Venice. It's made from more natural ingredients, so it's arguably better for you, but as far as taste goes, their pasta is no better than ours.
21. People think I have a really good Italian accent, but I just felt like a jackass trying to blend in despite knowing just four words of the language.
22. I really want a cat.
23. Buses stop running during snow emergencies, leaving you stranded out of state.
24. Money is not worth health and sanity.
25. Life is beautiful and complicated.
I have a lot of thoughts, but it's very late, and I have a lot more processing to do. I can't help but feel as though I'm treading ever closer to a great journey. It is... Faexing.
-
Waddles
Phil loves Gravity Falls. I've spread the goodness to another soul.
So, instead of doing anything in-depth just yet, I'm going to make some general notes:
1. Everyone has rose-colored glasses for geographic locations and cultures. People don't realistically see the problems that a society has when they're in love with it.
2. Everyone in Italy smokes.
3. Everyone in Italy is far more formal and moderate than Americans. We're more extreme, either more or less eccentric than average. We're more emotive and expressive- more likely to be happy, angry, sad, etc. in public. This isn't necessarily good or bad, but I think it makes people far more boring.
4. Systems hold your hand in America for fear of accidentally leading you to believe that a stupid action is either safe or correct. Foreign lands don't seem to give a shit if you get lost because of horribly nonsensical signs and directions. Again, not necessarily good or bad, and frankly, I think America could stand to do a little less hand-holding. But the French? Oof. They're intentionally convoluted.
5. Everyone thinks they're better than everyone else. Moral of the story: We're all arrogant and pretentious fucks. We're all flawed. We're all opinionated, and we all think our opinions are best.
6. No one is fat outside of America.
7. Holy shit, foreign women are gorgeous.
8. Holy shit, foreign women with accents.
9. I am probably not likely to be terribly impressed by any nation. Each has its share of really absurd and stupid problems. Sure, Italians are more relaxed about life, but they're less driven, less motivated, less passionate. And sure, Americans are probably harder workers in general, but we're also workaholics with an unhealthy obsession for money and power, having idealized this notion of being "rich" and "making it." We allow our quest for material possessions to overshadow the simple quest for happiness and health. A positive psychologist's worst nightmare.
10. Venice's architecture is beautiful, but in all its grandeur, how many lives were ruined in its creation? How many lives were broken to create each church? How many buildings were used for subjugation, prejudice, and hatred? The history is fascinating, but it's also disgusting. By glossing over the ugly truths of history, we're complicit in their repetition in the present.
11. Every store in Venice is a mask store and/or a scarf store.
12. I have latched on to idle wishes and sentimentality where I must focus on practical endeavors and self-improvement.
13. Airports are the worst ever.
14. Ever.
15. Don't walk to the store in 0 degree weather and a foot of snow. It's a bad idea.
16. Venice was incredibly cool, and it was the experience of a lifetime, but not because any individual thing was gorgeous, or even because I got to get lost in the streets, but because I am tentatively learning that all places are awful in their own ways; sometimes subtle, and sometimes quite conspicuous.
17. Trying new things doesn't kill you. This one was important.
18. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a great movie with many thoughts about the intersectionality between human experiences creating life. It also addressed very human sentiments about death, relationships, starting over, finding meaning in life, and doing what makes you happy.
19. I love who I am, and I hope I do not doubt my worth as often anymore. If I never doubt my worth, I'll become complacent and egotistical.
20. The food isn't any better in Venice. It's made from more natural ingredients, so it's arguably better for you, but as far as taste goes, their pasta is no better than ours.
21. People think I have a really good Italian accent, but I just felt like a jackass trying to blend in despite knowing just four words of the language.
22. I really want a cat.
23. Buses stop running during snow emergencies, leaving you stranded out of state.
24. Money is not worth health and sanity.
25. Life is beautiful and complicated.
I have a lot of thoughts, but it's very late, and I have a lot more processing to do. I can't help but feel as though I'm treading ever closer to a great journey. It is... Faexing.
-
Waddles
Phil loves Gravity Falls. I've spread the goodness to another soul.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Thoughts on Karma
So this is a topic I've had some wheelings and dealings with. Karma is one of those issues I discuss as though there was an objective principle existing in the world that seeks to maintain a balance between opposing forces.
I'm probably mostly incorrect when I speak that way. Why only mostly though?
Karma, the idea that if you do something good, good will happen to you, and if you do something bad, bad will happen to you (oversimplification of the day) has no comparable strict rules or laws in nature. You can choose to murder someone and still be completely happy in your life. You can also be the most pious person ever, cursed with depression and constant misfortune.
However, there is a natural force that somewhat aligns with the rules of karma- the human mind and its respective emotions.
Psychological studies show that when we do good, we feel good, and when we do bad, we feel bad.
Health and Volunteering
To get an idea for how "immoral" deeds make us feel worse, we need only look at the existence of guilt and shame. While shame can occur in the case of perceived failure, it also occurs in the case of perceived wrongdoing, along with guilt.
So, the body creates its own karmic justice. So what's the problem? As we've learned throughout the course of psychological studies over the years, the brain can be tricked into feelings things in inappropriate contexts. The brain can be gamed- exploited.
See the "Cheater's High"
We make constant rationalizations and justifications for our behavior in order to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) feeling guilt and shame, since they negatively impact our performance without really doing a whole lot to enhance our capabilities. We have an innate aversion to guilt and shame. For some people, this simply means avoiding doing things that produce those emotions. For others, it means convincing themselves that what they're doing should not elicit those particular emotions. For still others, their brain is hardwired differently such that those emotions are triggered differently, or sometimes not at all (in the case of sociopathy).
Evolutionarily, there's a good case to be made for shame and guilt benefiting humanity. Without a powerful, internal feeling compelling us to avoid certain behaviors human collaboration would likely be somewhere between impossible and counter-acted by destructive deeds. This would imply that the essence of karma is evolutionarily programmed into us as a species. Of course, everyone's a little different, and sometimes alterations occur. Moreover, it doesn't appear that this concept of karma is static. Rather, it can change over time as we learn and experience the world. Our ethical perspectives and principles are not set in stone, and indeed, they can pull a 180 in a relatively short time span, given enough pressure.
However, evolution is not perfect, it's merely a vague guideline by which the world naturally travels. As a result, it shouldn't be surprising that there are ways to fudge evolutionary benefits that are "inconvenient" towards personal gain. In this case, ethical behavior. In the micro-scale, acting outside of ethical boundaries caused immediate strife in small populations. It's hard to do something wrong and not be called out on it. Think about a family unit as an example.
However, at the macro-level, the population is simply too large to effectively police everyone, so systems are automated in an attempt to encourage self-policing. This lends itself to the ability for individuals with the knowhow to sidestep the system at multiple intervals along the way.
Undoubtedly, this type of exploitation is morally dubious, and yet humans are drawn to it like moths to a flame. If we can exploit without hurting anyone, we tend to feel significantly better for some reason. This is somewhat problematic in and of itself, because if you combine that with the knowledge that we can lie and rationalize to ourselves, then it's feasible to convince ourselves that we aren't harming anyone even when we are, which leads to reduced sense of empathy despite the pain being caused.
#complicated
Ethical notions are weird.
-
Waddles
I'm probably mostly incorrect when I speak that way. Why only mostly though?
Karma, the idea that if you do something good, good will happen to you, and if you do something bad, bad will happen to you (oversimplification of the day) has no comparable strict rules or laws in nature. You can choose to murder someone and still be completely happy in your life. You can also be the most pious person ever, cursed with depression and constant misfortune.
However, there is a natural force that somewhat aligns with the rules of karma- the human mind and its respective emotions.
Psychological studies show that when we do good, we feel good, and when we do bad, we feel bad.
Health and Volunteering
To get an idea for how "immoral" deeds make us feel worse, we need only look at the existence of guilt and shame. While shame can occur in the case of perceived failure, it also occurs in the case of perceived wrongdoing, along with guilt.
So, the body creates its own karmic justice. So what's the problem? As we've learned throughout the course of psychological studies over the years, the brain can be tricked into feelings things in inappropriate contexts. The brain can be gamed- exploited.
See the "Cheater's High"
We make constant rationalizations and justifications for our behavior in order to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) feeling guilt and shame, since they negatively impact our performance without really doing a whole lot to enhance our capabilities. We have an innate aversion to guilt and shame. For some people, this simply means avoiding doing things that produce those emotions. For others, it means convincing themselves that what they're doing should not elicit those particular emotions. For still others, their brain is hardwired differently such that those emotions are triggered differently, or sometimes not at all (in the case of sociopathy).
Evolutionarily, there's a good case to be made for shame and guilt benefiting humanity. Without a powerful, internal feeling compelling us to avoid certain behaviors human collaboration would likely be somewhere between impossible and counter-acted by destructive deeds. This would imply that the essence of karma is evolutionarily programmed into us as a species. Of course, everyone's a little different, and sometimes alterations occur. Moreover, it doesn't appear that this concept of karma is static. Rather, it can change over time as we learn and experience the world. Our ethical perspectives and principles are not set in stone, and indeed, they can pull a 180 in a relatively short time span, given enough pressure.
However, evolution is not perfect, it's merely a vague guideline by which the world naturally travels. As a result, it shouldn't be surprising that there are ways to fudge evolutionary benefits that are "inconvenient" towards personal gain. In this case, ethical behavior. In the micro-scale, acting outside of ethical boundaries caused immediate strife in small populations. It's hard to do something wrong and not be called out on it. Think about a family unit as an example.
However, at the macro-level, the population is simply too large to effectively police everyone, so systems are automated in an attempt to encourage self-policing. This lends itself to the ability for individuals with the knowhow to sidestep the system at multiple intervals along the way.
Undoubtedly, this type of exploitation is morally dubious, and yet humans are drawn to it like moths to a flame. If we can exploit without hurting anyone, we tend to feel significantly better for some reason. This is somewhat problematic in and of itself, because if you combine that with the knowledge that we can lie and rationalize to ourselves, then it's feasible to convince ourselves that we aren't harming anyone even when we are, which leads to reduced sense of empathy despite the pain being caused.
#complicated
Ethical notions are weird.
-
Waddles
Friday, December 20, 2013
On the Acceptability of Hatred
Alright, so in light of this Duck Dynasty BS, I've had a few thoughts about the nature of bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc. and its cultural acceptability.
This is, I think, a thornier issue than people are interested in making it. Let's first break this down into its fundamental perspectives so that we're not getting muddled with intersecting definitions.
Legal:
This is really the most cut-and-dry of the perspectives on hatred. Is it legal to hate people? To be intolerant of them?
The answer is "Yes, but..." with the caveat that you're not allowed to let your intolerance affect how you treat people whom you do not accept. Granted, there are some laws that specifically circumvent this legal issue, allowing for the bullying of people on the basis of religious beliefs, etc.
However, on the whole, you simply cannot treat people differently depending on whether or not you like them or their choices.
Unless, their choices directly impact the environment/people around them. Alcoholics who show up to work drunk, people who have anger management problems that come out in public, people who physically abuse others, etc. We can be intolerant of these choices because they play a direct role on the surrounding environment of the perpetrator.
Where the issue gets murkier is when there's indirect consequences to the choices we make. We don't have a sufficient legal system set up to handle indirect causation. For example, anger management problems are an issue if they affect the environment, but what if our anger management problems stem from something else? Something that doesn't directly affect the environment? What if our anger management issues stem from a personally-held racist ideology that is never revealed to the public? What if it stems from our religion? From our sexual fetish? From any other personal opinion we hold that doesn't directly sway our actions?
Is it still acceptable if it causes the anger management problems? Or are we allowed to be intolerant of it at that point?
Moral:
This one is probably the most subjective since personal morality varies from person to person. Are we allowed to be intolerant of something if it causes moral problems?
For example, the bullying of gay youths- I would pretty strictly say that intolerance causing moral qualms is unacceptable, but I cannot deny the argument of utilitarianism here. If your immoral intolerance results in a better world overall, who's to argue that your actions are not just?
Obviously, the problem here is that someone is actively making the decision for what makes the world "better." A judgment call that no one has the power to make on their own. So, we as a society have to establish what consequences result in a "better" society. This is an unfortunately complicated issue and is almost literally just an impossible endeavor based on the subjective nature of the undertaking.
This is the issue raised when we ponder whether or not it's okay to hate hatred; to be intolerant of intolerance; etc.
Is free speech inherently ethical? Or is there a line whereupon free speech crosses into immoral territory? Who decides that? How do we decide the line? Does free speech become unacceptable when it harms another person? How are we defining harm?
What if we tell someone they cannot hate? What if bottling that hate hurts them?
Is there a way to determine aggregate societal benefits like that?
Physical:
Physical intolerance is basically the one issue that we can write off right away. It only causes harm to be physically hateful to another person for any reason. This harm is nothing more than vindictiveness, isn't it? Or is there some retribution in it?
Once again, who gets to decide that? Is it based on outcomes? What if vengeance truly satisfies some people? Is it acceptable?
Emotional:
Emotional hatred is probably the one I find to be the worst. It causes the most long-term damage, but is the hardest to define or prove. It's the easiest to commit this act of hatred unintentionally. It's the hardest to see the damaging effects on others when we do.
If our hatred elicits feelings of persecution, solitude, desolation, isn't it immoral?
What if it is, again, an intolerance of hatred itself? Are people expected or allowed to feel solitude and isolation when they're not allowed to hate?
Ultimately, I think the greatest good is produced by refusing to accept hatred in general. That isn't to say hating hatred. We must understand it and its necessity, but politely decline it from entering our society, our hearts, and our minds. But that's an ideal. In the meantime, is it acceptable to fight fire with fire? Hate the hatred? Be intolerant of intolerance?
It would be arrogant to assume I know what's best. I have ideas and hypotheses, but nothing more than that.
Hatred is natural, and we must accept its existence, but we do not have to tolerate its presence when it causes undue harm. I wish I had a more solid answer than that.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
This is, I think, a thornier issue than people are interested in making it. Let's first break this down into its fundamental perspectives so that we're not getting muddled with intersecting definitions.
Legal:
This is really the most cut-and-dry of the perspectives on hatred. Is it legal to hate people? To be intolerant of them?
The answer is "Yes, but..." with the caveat that you're not allowed to let your intolerance affect how you treat people whom you do not accept. Granted, there are some laws that specifically circumvent this legal issue, allowing for the bullying of people on the basis of religious beliefs, etc.
However, on the whole, you simply cannot treat people differently depending on whether or not you like them or their choices.
Unless, their choices directly impact the environment/people around them. Alcoholics who show up to work drunk, people who have anger management problems that come out in public, people who physically abuse others, etc. We can be intolerant of these choices because they play a direct role on the surrounding environment of the perpetrator.
Where the issue gets murkier is when there's indirect consequences to the choices we make. We don't have a sufficient legal system set up to handle indirect causation. For example, anger management problems are an issue if they affect the environment, but what if our anger management problems stem from something else? Something that doesn't directly affect the environment? What if our anger management issues stem from a personally-held racist ideology that is never revealed to the public? What if it stems from our religion? From our sexual fetish? From any other personal opinion we hold that doesn't directly sway our actions?
Is it still acceptable if it causes the anger management problems? Or are we allowed to be intolerant of it at that point?
Moral:
This one is probably the most subjective since personal morality varies from person to person. Are we allowed to be intolerant of something if it causes moral problems?
For example, the bullying of gay youths- I would pretty strictly say that intolerance causing moral qualms is unacceptable, but I cannot deny the argument of utilitarianism here. If your immoral intolerance results in a better world overall, who's to argue that your actions are not just?
Obviously, the problem here is that someone is actively making the decision for what makes the world "better." A judgment call that no one has the power to make on their own. So, we as a society have to establish what consequences result in a "better" society. This is an unfortunately complicated issue and is almost literally just an impossible endeavor based on the subjective nature of the undertaking.
This is the issue raised when we ponder whether or not it's okay to hate hatred; to be intolerant of intolerance; etc.
Is free speech inherently ethical? Or is there a line whereupon free speech crosses into immoral territory? Who decides that? How do we decide the line? Does free speech become unacceptable when it harms another person? How are we defining harm?
What if we tell someone they cannot hate? What if bottling that hate hurts them?
Is there a way to determine aggregate societal benefits like that?
Physical:
Physical intolerance is basically the one issue that we can write off right away. It only causes harm to be physically hateful to another person for any reason. This harm is nothing more than vindictiveness, isn't it? Or is there some retribution in it?
Once again, who gets to decide that? Is it based on outcomes? What if vengeance truly satisfies some people? Is it acceptable?
Emotional:
Emotional hatred is probably the one I find to be the worst. It causes the most long-term damage, but is the hardest to define or prove. It's the easiest to commit this act of hatred unintentionally. It's the hardest to see the damaging effects on others when we do.
If our hatred elicits feelings of persecution, solitude, desolation, isn't it immoral?
What if it is, again, an intolerance of hatred itself? Are people expected or allowed to feel solitude and isolation when they're not allowed to hate?
Ultimately, I think the greatest good is produced by refusing to accept hatred in general. That isn't to say hating hatred. We must understand it and its necessity, but politely decline it from entering our society, our hearts, and our minds. But that's an ideal. In the meantime, is it acceptable to fight fire with fire? Hate the hatred? Be intolerant of intolerance?
It would be arrogant to assume I know what's best. I have ideas and hypotheses, but nothing more than that.
Hatred is natural, and we must accept its existence, but we do not have to tolerate its presence when it causes undue harm. I wish I had a more solid answer than that.
Thoughts?
-
Waddles
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
On Mindreading
It's not a terribly protected secret that I've been having a lot of thoughts about truth, honesty, and openness lately. I've begun opting into conversations that would normally make me incredibly uncomfortable out of sheer desire to conquer the fear of vulnerability. I've begun telling people the things I truly want, rather than hope they determine through some act of providence before proceeding to carry out that wish.
It's obvious that such a methodology is laughably ill-designed. It requires not only that people take subtle hints and extrapolate solid ideas from them, but also that they be certain enough about their interpretation to inspire action.
I dunno' about you, but I'm never certain enough of anything to inspire stalwart action.
People can pick up on subtle hints. It's something humans are innately pretty good at. But we don't necessarily speak the language of these hints. Rather, we take the hints in and interpret them as emotions. We get "vibes" from people. We sense emotions and turn around to exude those ourselves. But these aren't explicit things. They're not clearly defined or solid. They're malleable, translucent, foggy, and hard to grasp.
So, if we're reading other people in such a vague language, it stands to reason that our hints will almost never be properly translated. Moreso, even if they were properly translated, we're so uncertain about our interpretations that we won't act on them except in a tentative manner (well, I say "we," but I'm neglecting to note that there are arrogant people who definitely assume that their interpretations are objectively correct).
Humans aren't mindreaders. Explicit desires and thoughts must be conveyed in an explicit manner in order to be explicitly understood. Not every thought or desire is important enough to warrant such conveyance, but some of them totally are. Some people want to be included. Remembered. Loved. Validated. Complimented. Treated as an equal. Lots of these wants coincide with each other, and possess similar implications as well as resulting in similar emotions. But, each is distinct in a variety of ways. Given the subtle differences, we can conclude that the nature of human desire is incredibly nuanced and a complicated language. It's normal to not have a solid hold on this language. It's even more normal to not have a solid hold on how others use and interpret that language.
It's for this reason that we have communication. Verbal and non-verbal; In order to better express our thoughts and ideas.
This isn't just a capacity we have, but a need. A yearning. We want to be understood. We want our thoughts and desires to be heard and responded to. Even if they're rejected, there's a sense of closure in having our thoughts directly addressed. That closure is satisfying and stress-reducing.
For many of us, that need for closure is, unfortunately, quite ongoing. I, for example, suffer from anxiety and paranoia. I need to have my value explicitly reaffirmed with just the right amount of frequency or else I start to get really stressed out. Too much, and I stop believing the words. Too little, and I trust that the absence of words is proof that the feeling doesn't exist.
While my next step is to try to find medication for this imbalance, I've started to recognize in the here and now that I have that need, and I've begun actively seeking for people to fulfill that need rather than let my paranoia fester to an unreasonable state. It makes me come off as needy, but I'd rather that than be compulsively worrying about little details constantly. I got an ulcer from that already. It only takes one for me to realize how unsustainable living under those conditions is.
Some of our needs are physical. We need to be alone. We need to be surrounded. We need pleasure. We need to weep with empathy. We need intimacy.
Some of our needs are spiritual. Philosophical. Emotional. Mental. But the thing that remains constant through our needs is that they're individual to us. They are unique in exactly how much we need, when, and what kind of stimulation. Given the incredible variance between people and individual needs, it would be impossible to expect these needs to be met without explicitly asking.
So, start communicating. Start expressing your needs to the people that you want to fulfill them. If they refuse or mock you for it, they probably weren't worth having in your life anyway. Moreover, they probably weren't someone who would fulfill those needs if you hadn't asked.
If they respond positively, then your relationship has gotten just a bit stronger, and you'll know you can trust them in the future.
Ask people what they need. And not in a passing "do you need anything?" way; that implies the possibility that they don't need something. A consideration that gives them an excuse not to open up. Ask "what" someone needs.
What do you need? Right now? From me? From someone else? From anyone else?
Communicate that need. If it can't feasibly be met, then you need someone to complain to. Someone who will listen and not judge.
Why be ashamed of what you need? Will that help you? To ignore and avoid your needs and wants?
Somehow, I doubt it...
-
Waddles
It's obvious that such a methodology is laughably ill-designed. It requires not only that people take subtle hints and extrapolate solid ideas from them, but also that they be certain enough about their interpretation to inspire action.
I dunno' about you, but I'm never certain enough of anything to inspire stalwart action.
People can pick up on subtle hints. It's something humans are innately pretty good at. But we don't necessarily speak the language of these hints. Rather, we take the hints in and interpret them as emotions. We get "vibes" from people. We sense emotions and turn around to exude those ourselves. But these aren't explicit things. They're not clearly defined or solid. They're malleable, translucent, foggy, and hard to grasp.
So, if we're reading other people in such a vague language, it stands to reason that our hints will almost never be properly translated. Moreso, even if they were properly translated, we're so uncertain about our interpretations that we won't act on them except in a tentative manner (well, I say "we," but I'm neglecting to note that there are arrogant people who definitely assume that their interpretations are objectively correct).
Humans aren't mindreaders. Explicit desires and thoughts must be conveyed in an explicit manner in order to be explicitly understood. Not every thought or desire is important enough to warrant such conveyance, but some of them totally are. Some people want to be included. Remembered. Loved. Validated. Complimented. Treated as an equal. Lots of these wants coincide with each other, and possess similar implications as well as resulting in similar emotions. But, each is distinct in a variety of ways. Given the subtle differences, we can conclude that the nature of human desire is incredibly nuanced and a complicated language. It's normal to not have a solid hold on this language. It's even more normal to not have a solid hold on how others use and interpret that language.
It's for this reason that we have communication. Verbal and non-verbal; In order to better express our thoughts and ideas.
This isn't just a capacity we have, but a need. A yearning. We want to be understood. We want our thoughts and desires to be heard and responded to. Even if they're rejected, there's a sense of closure in having our thoughts directly addressed. That closure is satisfying and stress-reducing.
For many of us, that need for closure is, unfortunately, quite ongoing. I, for example, suffer from anxiety and paranoia. I need to have my value explicitly reaffirmed with just the right amount of frequency or else I start to get really stressed out. Too much, and I stop believing the words. Too little, and I trust that the absence of words is proof that the feeling doesn't exist.
While my next step is to try to find medication for this imbalance, I've started to recognize in the here and now that I have that need, and I've begun actively seeking for people to fulfill that need rather than let my paranoia fester to an unreasonable state. It makes me come off as needy, but I'd rather that than be compulsively worrying about little details constantly. I got an ulcer from that already. It only takes one for me to realize how unsustainable living under those conditions is.
Some of our needs are physical. We need to be alone. We need to be surrounded. We need pleasure. We need to weep with empathy. We need intimacy.
Some of our needs are spiritual. Philosophical. Emotional. Mental. But the thing that remains constant through our needs is that they're individual to us. They are unique in exactly how much we need, when, and what kind of stimulation. Given the incredible variance between people and individual needs, it would be impossible to expect these needs to be met without explicitly asking.
So, start communicating. Start expressing your needs to the people that you want to fulfill them. If they refuse or mock you for it, they probably weren't worth having in your life anyway. Moreover, they probably weren't someone who would fulfill those needs if you hadn't asked.
If they respond positively, then your relationship has gotten just a bit stronger, and you'll know you can trust them in the future.
Ask people what they need. And not in a passing "do you need anything?" way; that implies the possibility that they don't need something. A consideration that gives them an excuse not to open up. Ask "what" someone needs.
What do you need? Right now? From me? From someone else? From anyone else?
Communicate that need. If it can't feasibly be met, then you need someone to complain to. Someone who will listen and not judge.
Why be ashamed of what you need? Will that help you? To ignore and avoid your needs and wants?
Somehow, I doubt it...
-
Waddles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)