Why do I do the things I do?
All of the sum of our human experiences. The external or other selves have some degree to influence us. It helped us shape our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. For some humans there are out of good experiences. Such as getting raised with parents that care about you and teach you things like language and maths so you can be a useful member of society. While some are raised without the love and care of their parents. Some are with “tough love” where the definition of “love” becomes grey as much as it is white from the perspective of the parents but black from the Child. As in, when the parents told the child what to do out of intent that the parents think “it is ultimately good for the child’s future” without accounting much of the child’s real feelings and emotions that may contradict with the ideal states of what the parents desire.
Each to its own have their own idea and representation of the world in which every life is raised in on different conditions and experiences. Each to its own is bound to have a different idea and representation of the world. No human experiences and thoughts are exactly the same, even for genetically identical twins. It is more probable for two selves to have different ideas and representations of the world than to have the same.
The grey love between the controlling parents or even sometimes emotionally manipulative and abusive with perceived “ultimately good-will” and the child who can’t bear the frustration and suffering from the pressure of disobedience. Both parties must continuously engage in experiences and have two options moving forward.
One, be silent and numb the human emotions that are bothering them and thus their synchronisation of each to its own idea and representation of the world will never be achieved or simply, never reach mutual human understanding. Both parties must still continue having experiences with each other compensating each to its own internal conflicts until one of them may or may not meet their boiling point and form an unprecedented manifestation in some form or another. The manifestation could take the form of a raging behaviour of the child that gradually loses trust and belonging to the parents which will also be devastating for the parents.
Since it’s harder to speculate the future and the possible manifestations that came out of internal conflicts. It is the path to least resistance to comply with the condition and leave the future manifestations to be framed as “inevitable consequences. As if it is too bothersome for both parties to think and make assumptions on how future manifestations if the current condition keep proceeding and could be greatly devastating for both parties.
I understand it is difficult to start and even to lead “difficult conversations”. It is much easier to sweep it under the rug and suffer internally.
There’s a logical paradox in this case that is “If the parents really love their child, why can’t it take the form of an active conversation to understand better about the child’s human emotions?” The parents will reply “But it is much easier to punish the child from bad behaviour! The child will not understand nor even listen to what I say is ultimately good for them!” The parents will still justify this narrative as they tried multiple times talking to the child multiple times in the past. This is at some point is comical as if talking to the child as a human to human interaction is to be discounted as a human to pavlonian dog interaction.
The uncanny thing about the canonical example is that it happens too often and there are too many cases! There are too many instances when it is easier to not say a thing and let future manifestations tell us what it means! And how the child would be able to say “It is due to the nature of how I was raised that shaped me the person that I am today.”
When the parents maintained a whole different idea and representation of the child in the form of unconditional love yet the word “love” has lost all objective meaning as if there is ever such a thing in the first place.
If you really want to “love” a person. It is really to be defined by the nature of understanding that person. The ability to love not out of what you think is “love” but also communicating and understanding what they think is “love”.
If you really were to want to love a person as an example of the parent to the child. It is not to be brought from the parents’ idea of “love” and to be subjugated or projected to the child but rather through a hard effort of communication and getting to know the other person, how their experiences are different from you. They don’t have the same mind as you and have different ideas and representation of the world as every person has unique experiences and unique thoughts! In which when both idea and representation of “love” is synchronised, both can have better human experiences out of the feeling of love towards one another. That is the alternative option B instead of deeming the nature of the child as stubborn, stupid, dumb, and doesn’t know any better. In which the child will deem the parents to be cold, absolute with judgement, and selfish.
Part 2
Moving out of the household case, we now move on from child to parent interaction to “The self” to “the world” or “other selves” interaction. From observing our emotions, through our moments of confusion, unbelonging, loneliness, or simply “when we don’t know what we want out of life” or lack of drive or meaning or positive mental attitude towards life.
Through observing myself and other humans, I came to notice that this is somewhat of a relatively common experience. Something that is best described as “the lack” or a well defined purpose that is power hungry to make us want to feel that we are of something of significance.
Why is that?
I couldn’t tell if it’s the same for you but I certainly feel it. There is something inside me that is burning. Eating me inside out. And when that flame perishes as I no longer familiarise myself with the path to the light as in towards the idea of self actualization or becoming the best version of a human that I could possibly be. I am left in a state of despair and boredom.
There is a dilemma towards this concept of self actualization. It is undoubtedly hard, the part of figuring out itself is already hard let alone the path. Yet I believe there are instances when it could be felt when even if its just a glimmer of hope towards self actualization is personally rewarding to the self.
There were occasions in my life when I could feel that I am on stable or well-regulated emotions in which I am not greatly sad nor greatly elated. Things are just nice. But when I quite accidentally slipped into the pit of despair and agony. The rebounce of it as I lived through that moment and learned a lot about it where meaning comes out of it. It is very hard to tell when I was standing at the bottomless pit where I couldn’t see any meaning that could ever come out of it. The pressure from the pit and the desire to exercise thinking and reason gets harder. Everything happens for a reason because YOU make the REASON.
The is a universal “Will” within the self that shows itself in forms of motivation or “the want”. Through understanding parts of our human nature, we can see clearly the nature of “the will”. One way to look at it is through observing the extremes of human emotions where the situations are difficult.
How do humans avoid suffering?
I’d like to give an example tracing back to the relationship between the selfish parent and the powerless child. Even if by nature, the parents want to do what they believe is ultimately good. The representation of “good” may be different to the child. We could say that it is by nature that the parent wants the best for the child. It is written on the mother hormones when she breastfeeds the baby in which oxytocin as the bonding hormone gets secreted, the part of the “self” of the mother becomes dissolution to the child. Now the mother and the child have become one. As the identity of the individual mother has been disintegrated, it then also shows in forms of manifestations of action of what the mother does and how she spent her life out of the sake of the happiness of the child. As much as the child’s happiness is their mothers’ happiness. The inherent selfless behaviour.
Conflict arises when each to its own representation of the world which includes “goodness” mismatched that comes from the lack of mutual human understanding. In a sense that subjective goodness that is perceived by the child is projected towards the helpless child through forms of absolute obedience and frightening consequences. The better scenario or rather the utopia is where there is less mismatch of each to its own idea and representation of the world. In which “true love” does not come from selfish desire or wants of the parents but rather the act of selfless love.
If you really want the child to be happy then why are through your series of actions that you call “love” you’re making the child unhappy? Truly there is a line between “selfish love” and “selfless love” and that is only attainable through difficult moments that require time, effort, and commitment to understand the other in which both strives to be selfless to each other as much each other values the existence of each other and would want their future experiences with each other is to be beautiful and better ones and minimise conflicts as much as possible. Truly what is a better world where everyone just understands each other?
Selfishness is the incapability of seeing the world outside of the self. It’s always “You” in the picture! Since you could only feel your feelings therefore it’s what only matters to you! Even in a world where the “self” can’t define itself without the presence of others, they would still want to only think about themselves. Other people are just other people, why should I care about them? My brother in Christ, the self can’t define itself without the presence of others. How the fuck do you even define yourself without the presence of anyone?! You can’t. Through the act of observing others and being with the others, you may find and recognize yourself. Not only as an individual but as a part that continuously engaged with other selves.
The self is from the first moment it was born is placed between other selves. Being raised by other selves. Nurtured and taught by other selves. The self can’t define itself without the presence of the others and yet the self wants to define itself indifferent to the others, a sense of significance or meaning.
Something of meaning in which meaning is by nature is inner and each to its own. But is still to be created in a plane where the other selves exist.
In a world where God is just ideas well sustained by other selves. The quest of “the self” belonging is completely up to him. Creating a plane of meaning in which the self can define itself among the presence of other selves.
The self knows that there is an undeniable sensation that when he sees other “selves” that he loves and cares about are happy then he is happy. The self is always in a certain degree of dissolution with other selves, at least with other selves that he dearly cares for and loves.
The self finds comfort that goes beyond language when the self is placed between other selves that he dearly cared for. The self let other selves redefine the self as much as other selves let the self redefine them. It’s just in his nature to feel happiness when placed among the people that he cares about.