increasing awesome

i had a thought pass through the river of my mind recently, and it was so strange to me that i pulled it aside to examine it some more. the thought was this: what if life isn't just about avoiding negative outcomes?

lots of people live their lives this way, but it's so outside of my natural way of thinking that the prospect of thinking this way regularly is totally bonkers to me. i mean, isn't that basically just carelessness? of course we want to avoid negative outcomes, right?

sure, of course. but not just that. this most recent season has been tough because in a lot of ways, i've struggled to want things of my own volition. it seems to be getting a bit better now, but i've struggled to want to do things i used to like, want to have goals, want to hang out with people. i'll do things because it seems like i should, or because i know my state of mind will worsen if i don't, or because i will lose relationships if i don't. (that may seem extreme, but it's already happened.) like i am a slave, and my driver is Duty. it's all avoidance of the negative. i remember saying some months ago, "there's nothing i want to do, only things i don't want to do."

ultimately, i believe it's because i've been afraid to want, afraid to hope. the last time i wanted something so desperately that it shaped the way i made decisions, it led to suffering upon suffering (at the risk of sounding overly dramatic). so i think subconsciously, my brain may have been protecting me from that kind of pain by shutting down my wanter. i have struggled with feeling that my feelings are irrelevant--so why bother acknowledging or having them? my roommate said that that sounds like a painful way to live, and initially i agreed with her, but actually that's just the point. apathy is significantly less painful for me, and most days when i asked myself which i would prefer, i thought i would rather not feel anything at all.

but truthfully, that's no way to live. an engine cannot continue running with no fuel, and neither can a person. Mom (of all people!) said once that life is about taking risks, which is a quote that shouldn't be taken to extremes, but i still found it surprising.

"don't you just feel that way because of the rules instilled in you by your faith? isn't that the main thing that binds you to duty?"

i don't think so. Jesus said that we were "free indeed." he wants us to live joyfully, having life in full. the boundaries set are "in pleasant places." a life lived for him is a sacrifice, like a marriage is a sacrifice, but i don't believe it's just that. it's an acknowledgement that this choice is the better one.

i think that sometimes my brain clings to anxiety, to control, like a child clings to the monkey bars. as if by overthinking every possible scenario i could ever find myself in, i can have complete control over my future and avoid all unpleasantness. the lie is that control is attainable, even for a worrier. life isn't just about negating bad things, but also producing good things.

i am still struggling with the Biblical definition of freedom, because it is so different from our cultural conception of what freedom looks like. but the freedom that Christ offers is that of not having to hold onto control so tightly. because he is powerful, and because he cares for me and because he sees down to every intimate detail of my life, i can trust that just because something is out of my control does not mean that it is out of control.

individual freedom vs. social responsibility: pt ii

this is sort of an offshoot to the last topic, and a somewhat hotter take in my opinion, and it's a response to the mentality that says "i am not responsible for others' feelings."

which, like, yes. ultimately, each of us is responsible for what we do with our own thoughts and feelings. i think we are better off for thinking that way for ourselves--it shifts the locus of control in our favor. and also, it's important for your own sanity to realize when someone else's unreasonableness or overreaction is not your fault.

but we are responsible for the things we do that affect other people, and, to some degree, how they affect other people. my problem with this statement is that it's not a far leap from "i am not responsible for others' feelings," to "well it's not my fault you're responding in a hurt way to my choices." and that is blaming other people for their pain, which is the technical definition of a fartbag. if my default approach to life is that i can't be held responsible for the feelings of others, then it becomes very easy for me to go through life justifying the havoc i leave in my wake as i fail to empathize with them in the name of my own freedom. it is very easy to do this even without realizing that that's anything like what i'm doing.

perhaps an amended version of this statement could be "i am not responsible for what others do with their feelings,"?

to tie it back into my last post, if we accept the premise that we have some responsibility to other humans, it should not be a surprise or a wildly controversial statement that taking into consideration the feelings and struggles of those around us should be a fairly baseline responsibility to them.

but to what degree should this be taken? that, Detective, is the right question.

individual freedom vs. social responsibility

i may be out of line with all this, but i don't think i am.

the more i think about this, the more it seems obvious that the more you have responsibility, the less you are able to use your own individual freedom.

for example: if i work eight hours a day at a job, i am responsible to be there, to get the job done, to generally be a good employee, etc. i then no longer have the freedom for those eight hours to choose where i am or what i am doing. i have an obligation to fulfill to my boss, or my customers, or whomever. (it's also worth noting that in this situation, i am compensated in a way that makes it worthwhile to continue bearing the responsibility and forfeiting my freedom; namely, i get paid so that i can continue living. this is a relevant part of this topic, but not the central part right now.)

here's my hot take: i think we have failed when we stop viewing relationships as responsibilities.

in a working relationship, this is probably the most obvious, because it is relatively cut and dry. most of my responsibilities to the people i work with have to do with the job itself, and not so much with interpersonal dynamics.

however; there are social borders, which can be harder to define or navigate sometimes. it is a basic responsibility that you have to all people, whether you know them or not, to not murder them or steal from them, for example. it is a pretty basic responsibility you have to the people you interact with to maintain a baseline level of politeness and friendliness (in our society). but what are the exact borders of that? there is some grey area, and this may be one of the more clear-cut examples. do i have the individual freedom to swear in the privacy of my own home? technically yes. do i have the freedom to swear at frustrating customers or coworkers or students? no.

but then, there are other relationships which are more sticky. friends. family. old acquaintances. former friends. the rules are less universal, but may be more binding. do i have the freedom to swear around or at my friends and family? i mean, my relationships don't generally operate that way, but many do. can i spread gossip about my friends? about my family? probably not if i want to keep those relationships.

that actually leads to an important distinction. in most cases, technically, i have freedom to do whatever i want, but it may not benefit me to do so. can i skip work whenever i want so that i can stay home and watch tv? i mean, technically yes. but doing so will get me fired, probably. can i badmouth or betray my friends and family? sure, but that will result in lost friends and poisoned familial relationships.

so here's a thought experiment. there is something i can do which i know will hurt someone i know, but is socially acceptable, and possibly even within my right to do. it is an expression of my freedom, but is not necessary. do i have the freedom if that hurt person is just some rando on the street? a coworker? an acquaintance? a close friend? a family member?

this is a rhetorical question; my point is that the answer may change depending on the relationship. relationships come with responsibilities, whether we want to believe it or not. in a world where you need to interact with other people, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. that would be anarchy. there is nothing freer than being alone, but that does not mean it is the best way.

so to whom are we responsible, and for what?

that, Detective, is the right question.