Musings and in Journal
- April 14, 2022, 9:51 a.m.
- |
- Public
boring predictability.
Does anyone else find the predictable insufferably boring? I suppose in a melancholic way, it can be reassuring. Mostly for fear of change and moral clarity.
I am currently preoccupied with coming up with a good argument for DH to drop his phone contract. There are so many reasons why it would be good. Not only good, but consistent with his goals. I think he’d listen to the objective reasons. But, it does feel much better to connect over his personal ideal.
I’ve found more clarity on my own goals, ambitions, standards and boundaries. I think it’s quite something that the majority- and I mean vast majority- don’t care about boundaries or standards. Even as they acknowledge their lack of respect for boundaries, they plow ahead in order to meet some narcissistic need. Moreover, they admit to their fundamental inability to reciprocate.
I realize now that reciprocity must be the guiding standard to all interaction if my goals are to be sought consistently. Only through reciprocity can I be assured that I have standards that are accetable, and and I am meeting others’ standards. It is the most basic requirement for meaningful interaction, I think. And it ensures that my standards and value are ever elevated.
anticlimatic ⋅ April 14, 2022
Reciprocity is so much work, I thought the point of having standards was that people could take or leave you based on them- no business about it.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 15, 2022
:)
Yeah, reciprocity is work.
That's why the standard, I think. Justifiably, I don't want to pour time energy and resources into someone who isn't going to reciprocate. That would just be giving away my value for nothing in return, which is devaluing to me.
Kind of like a price sticker. People walk by, they see the price. If it's too high, they move on.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 15, 2022
I agree it’s a step in the right direction away from doormat status, but I do also think there’s a level of ‘being’ in regards to our relationships beyond quid pro quo. And it does come back to standards. If your standard is to just be treated fairly by others that’s not the worst thing in the world, but it does suggest dependency on people in general and self-oriented values. If your standard rather is to be a net positive in this world for the species as a whole, relationships take on a whole new context. The unreciprocated effort we dump into our kids, for example, for the sake of a better future for them and anyone around them.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 15, 2022 (edited April 15, 2022)
Edited
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction.
Having fair standards suggests a dependency on people in general?
What does this mean?
To be clear, if my minimum standard isn't met, there is no purpose in interaction... Or rather, the only purpose would be to limit interaction. I'm not sure how requiring a minimum standard for fairness would suggest dependency, but I could just be totally missing something.
Edit to add, children do have reciprocal value, otherwise no one would ever have them. I intuit a sort of 'virtue of selflessness' or altruism in your message. In contrary to the 'virtue of selfishness'.
How would you measure your value to humanity as a whole, for example? Humanity is fundamentally divided in what it pursues as virtue, as evidenced by the altuism vs selfishness.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 16, 2022
It's a distinction in context regarding the entire purpose of interaction at all, and I should add that I am just waxing philosophical with you here, I do about the same as you regarding the studious ensuring of equitable efforts between my peers.
The distinction is: if you're in the business of social business partnerships, as we all are, it inherently means you need people, as we all do. It serves the function of shoring up our individual needs and ultimately strengths for the later sake of contributing to the species as a whole, through either selfish or selfless means.
My goal is to be of sufficient means that the support or "networking" of other people is no longer necessary at least for whatever needs I might have to pursue broader goals. After that, interacting with people can be a means to a different end, and reciprocity can no longer be a concern.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 16, 2022
I appreciate a philosophical argument, but I must admit that I fail to see the distinction.
Humans need people. That is a basic and fundamental need, like the need for nourishment. I think it would be impossible and antithetical to prove that the purpose of that need is shoring up individual needs strengths. While that statement is patently and demonstrably untrue, I still wonder what assumptions and needs it may be serving for you.
Speaking of a goal to become independent of a need for other people is, at least to my understanding, like speaking of a goal to become independent of a need for nourishment. Since social interaction with other people is a fundamental and basic need, it is intrinsic to our humanity, and is ignored or manipulated to our peril. The extreme of course is like the extreme of denying or manipulating the need for nourishment; it does not decrease the dependence on that need being met. The result is only an ever greater willingness to accept lower standards for nourishment. A person starving for 10 days is willing to eat anything, at no greater value to themselves nor to humanity, nor to the quality of available food.
Likewise, a failure to meet one's need for social interactions isn't a virtue; it leads only to the lowering of standards, and the willingness to accept lesser and lesser quality. Confusing this for providing value is.... devastating for humanity, not a value to it.
Additionally, reciprocity is a very basic and immediate phenomenon, and is detected instantaneously through empathy, sympathy, compassion, mirroring, validation, reflection accuracy, etc. Failing to expect reciprocity is not just impossible, but imo, sociopathic. If one's goal is to provide, there must be a way to measure that value. The basic feedback of reciprocity is only a minimum requirement to measure that value.
Anywho, I hope that was clear and not offensive.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 16, 2022
I see your point, and I don't disagree in principal. What do we need from people exactly though? I'm genuinely asking, because I am not certain. I'm not certain we need more from them than interaction itself, which would mean that social needs could be met without the additional caveat of reciprocity.
I hope I'm not sociopathic, but am I wrong in understanding that total reciprocity is always just a vague target and seldom actually occurs in the world?
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 16, 2022
What do we need from people?
Do you have children?
Among the things I already listed such as empathy, etc, we need eye contact, physical touch, to be understood, to be seen, respected, heard, and the list goes on.
I'm not sure that I conveyed my point about social needs requiring reciprocity to be met. This is an example of reciprocity itself. I ask if you understand, and you reveal your ability to reciprocate by being willing to meet my need for clarity. Reciprocity is embedded in this interaction, which is why it is satisfying. I merely identified the reason that some interactions are not satisfying- which is to say, one feels as if they are talking to a wall. Or worse, have an experience of being an invisible poison container for dysfunctional projections.
I do not think that you're sociopathic, but perhaps thinking about this in a way that excuses sociopaths... I am not one to tell you that you're wrong, but you've stated an absolute "always vague", which cannot be true. I have for example put forth, I think, a fairly explicit and well defined explanation for reciprocity, and cited how it is present almost ubiquitously in satisfying human interaction.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 18, 2022
Ah, I take your point well then. I was trying to reconcile it in a literal sense with something else I've noticed- that PERFECT reciprocity is mostly impossible.
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 20, 2022 (edited April 20, 2022)
Edited
Perfect anything is impossible:)
Just editing to add that perfection as a false standard is covering up for something - an assumption, a belief, etc. I pointed it out earlier when I asked what this could be used to serve in your life.
Just a launching point for self knowledge, if you care about that sort of thing.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 20, 2022
By perfection as a false standard are you referring to the pathology of perfection?
Miss Chiffs Manager anticlimatic ⋅ April 21, 2022
Idk. What do you think?
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 21, 2022
Guess I'll ponder.
anticlimatic Miss Chiffs Manager ⋅ April 18, 2022
Apologies- no, I don't have kids. Do you?
Also, good list. Thank you.