Kalyssa,
thanks for your response.
Upfront, I´d like to get some issues out of the way:
- You are under no obligation to respond to my posts. I appreciate a lot when you do, but if you don´t that´s not a problem at all. This is an internet discussion among anonymous posters.
- Let´s please agree once and for all that this is nothing personal. This is an internet discussion about a certain topic. I don´t know you, you don´t know me. I don´t tend to take things personally in real life, and even less in an internet conversation (actually that´s about the only thing I value about internet conversations: nothing personal can get in the way of the abstract discussion, which is often the case - and to be taken very seriously, if it does - in face to face conversations). You and I aren´t gonna get married or something, so our disagreements aren´t going to be a personal issue among us.
OTOH, I have no problems talking about my personal experiences.
So much for that. Let´s just be relaxed, ok?
Now, I must admit that the formatting you chose after the hiatus doesn´t strike me as particularly clear (I don´t blame you for that), and I am not sure it´s the best option to address every single paragraph, and continue the back and forth. Even more so, since the entire first part of your post was based on a misunderstanding (i.e. you felt I was talking about helping the SO´s self-actualization while I actually meant my own self-actualization).
Thus, anticipating your agreement, I would prefer to summarize some points that seem important for understanding what I am trying to say, and maybe you could do the same in return - for a fresh start.
(However, if you feel some important point in your post has been left unaddressed or not been met with the appreciation it deserves, feel free to point me to it, and I will try to address it.)
Let´s go.
No, I do not think of my immediate emotions as the representation of my feelings. Feelings and immediate emotions are very different concepts, in my books, and while I consider the latter to be unquestionable, undisputable basics, I tend to think of my immediate emotions as demons within me that I need to learn to deal with.
Self-actualization, in my understanding, deals to a large degree with putting my emotions in perspective (or else I might still hit someone with a club over the head once I perceive them as being offensive or even only a nuisance) .
No, I don´t think that someone acting upon my immediate emotions is helping my happiness. It might be helping my convenience, my laziness, my immediate comfort, my wish to remain unchallenged and would spare me looking at conflicts that lie deep within me - but it doesn´t have anything to do with happiness (which is a huge word, anyway ). In any case, it doesn´t help my self-actualization. Rather, it tends to be an obstacle to it.
As more generally, I don´t think that someone else causes my emotions. The cause of my (immediate) emotions lies within me - although others may trigger them (often in a way that´s even more unpredictable or understandable for them than it is for me). Nobody else but me is responsible for my (immediate) emotions - they are founded in shortcomings in my personality that have been induced decades ago. They aren´t worth anything being sacrificed to.
Now, I totally understand that, how and why a couple may agree to seek convenience in their relationship (and thus makes sure to get to upfront agreements how to best prevent challenges of each other´s comfort zones and each other´s immediate emotions, etc. etc. - IOW to prevent what I personally consider "self-actualization" in favour of what they may call "respect", "sacrifice", "selflessness" or whatever).
I also am aware that this is the predominant approach to partnerships (and often to human interaction in general).
I´m not casting judgement upon others and their attempts to achieve and maintain a partnership. It´s their business, and I have no doubt they are acting in best intentions. I do not even doubt that some of them will be and remain satisfied with these approaches.
It´s just not my kind of thing. It´s not my idea. To me, it´s denying my potential in self-actualization, and thus actually working against me. It´s missing a huge chance. Plus, I would like to correct the notion (which has, more or less explicitly, been expressed in this thread) that my approach is - superficially - about instant gratification and hedonism. Also, imo it doesn´t do justice to the fact that we are in permanent change.
I will also freely admit that probably all of my previous partnerships have (ultimately) failed because of a basic misunderstanding of what she and I seeked in a partnership.
Finally, I will admit that a partnership of the kind I am seeking is going to be hard (but, imo, rewarding) work. After all, it will require partners to get aware and actively deal with all those projections, counter-projections, counter-counter-projections etc. that the "traditional" approach accepts as given and to be "respected".
As for your explanation of "sacrifice": Yes, quite obviously the fact that we have limited material resources means that we can´t have everything. A dollar I have can be spent only once, after all. Personally, I find the word "sacrifice" a little too big for describing the trivial fact that we have to make decisions between two things we desire.
OTOH, the subject of this thread doesn´t involve material resources - which tend to be limited.
And, yes, there often are conflicting emotions (intrapersonally and/or interpersonally). I don´t dispute this. It´s just that I have never found keeping other persons hostage with reference to my emotions has yielded good results (in terms of happiness as well as self-actualization).
The agreed upon fact that the emotions of two persons can be in conflict already implies that not all emotions can be lived out and/or be sheltered. Now, no matter if we call our will to abstain from living upon a certain emotion so that the other person´s emotion is sheltered and gets space to be lived out "suppression" or "sacrifice" - it´s inevitably going to happen (and if we don´t do it voluntarily, the conflict still will end with one person´s emotion not getting space). So I´m not sure how you manage to hold this against my approach (by giving it a negative label: "suppression") and - when it comes to your approach - praise it as "sacrifice".
You "suppressed"/"sacrificed" your desire for a coat etc., and quite apparently it proved - on another (dare I say: higher?) level - beneficial to you. You could give your kids gifts, and that promised and turned out to enhance the well-being of all people involved more than buying yourself a coat. Which suggest to me that the choice of either term (sacrifice, suppression) isn´t really catching the most significant parts of this process.
I am basically proposing the same (I just don´t happen to think of it as suppression or sacrifice - but ultimately of being in my own best interest), and I am wondering why you make out such an essential difference between the two.
As for the conflict between my, say, jealousy and my desire for the other person to freely explore whatever she finds worthy exploring, I would rate the latter way higher. Thus, in your terminology, I guess I would have to say "I sacrifice my jealousy to my latter desire".
thanks for your response.
Upfront, I´d like to get some issues out of the way:
- You are under no obligation to respond to my posts. I appreciate a lot when you do, but if you don´t that´s not a problem at all. This is an internet discussion among anonymous posters.
- Let´s please agree once and for all that this is nothing personal. This is an internet discussion about a certain topic. I don´t know you, you don´t know me. I don´t tend to take things personally in real life, and even less in an internet conversation (actually that´s about the only thing I value about internet conversations: nothing personal can get in the way of the abstract discussion, which is often the case - and to be taken very seriously, if it does - in face to face conversations). You and I aren´t gonna get married or something, so our disagreements aren´t going to be a personal issue among us.
OTOH, I have no problems talking about my personal experiences.
So much for that. Let´s just be relaxed, ok?
Now, I must admit that the formatting you chose after the hiatus doesn´t strike me as particularly clear (I don´t blame you for that), and I am not sure it´s the best option to address every single paragraph, and continue the back and forth. Even more so, since the entire first part of your post was based on a misunderstanding (i.e. you felt I was talking about helping the SO´s self-actualization while I actually meant my own self-actualization).
Thus, anticipating your agreement, I would prefer to summarize some points that seem important for understanding what I am trying to say, and maybe you could do the same in return - for a fresh start.
(However, if you feel some important point in your post has been left unaddressed or not been met with the appreciation it deserves, feel free to point me to it, and I will try to address it.)
Let´s go.
No, I do not think of my immediate emotions as the representation of my feelings. Feelings and immediate emotions are very different concepts, in my books, and while I consider the latter to be unquestionable, undisputable basics, I tend to think of my immediate emotions as demons within me that I need to learn to deal with.
Self-actualization, in my understanding, deals to a large degree with putting my emotions in perspective (or else I might still hit someone with a club over the head once I perceive them as being offensive or even only a nuisance)
.No, I don´t think that someone acting upon my immediate emotions is helping my happiness. It might be helping my convenience, my laziness, my immediate comfort, my wish to remain unchallenged and would spare me looking at conflicts that lie deep within me - but it doesn´t have anything to do with happiness (which is a huge word, anyway
). In any case, it doesn´t help my self-actualization. Rather, it tends to be an obstacle to it.As more generally, I don´t think that someone else causes my emotions. The cause of my (immediate) emotions lies within me - although others may trigger them (often in a way that´s even more unpredictable or understandable for them than it is for me). Nobody else but me is responsible for my (immediate) emotions - they are founded in shortcomings in my personality that have been induced decades ago. They aren´t worth anything being sacrificed to.
Now, I totally understand that, how and why a couple may agree to seek convenience in their relationship (and thus makes sure to get to upfront agreements how to best prevent challenges of each other´s comfort zones and each other´s immediate emotions, etc. etc. - IOW to prevent what I personally consider "self-actualization" in favour of what they may call "respect", "sacrifice", "selflessness" or whatever).
I also am aware that this is the predominant approach to partnerships (and often to human interaction in general).
I´m not casting judgement upon others and their attempts to achieve and maintain a partnership. It´s their business, and I have no doubt they are acting in best intentions. I do not even doubt that some of them will be and remain satisfied with these approaches.
It´s just not my kind of thing. It´s not my idea. To me, it´s denying my potential in self-actualization, and thus actually working against me. It´s missing a huge chance. Plus, I would like to correct the notion (which has, more or less explicitly, been expressed in this thread) that my approach is - superficially - about instant gratification and hedonism. Also, imo it doesn´t do justice to the fact that we are in permanent change.
I will also freely admit that probably all of my previous partnerships have (ultimately) failed because of a basic misunderstanding of what she and I seeked in a partnership.
Finally, I will admit that a partnership of the kind I am seeking is going to be hard (but, imo, rewarding) work. After all, it will require partners to get aware and actively deal with all those projections, counter-projections, counter-counter-projections etc. that the "traditional" approach accepts as given and to be "respected".
As for your explanation of "sacrifice": Yes, quite obviously the fact that we have limited material resources means that we can´t have everything. A dollar I have can be spent only once, after all. Personally, I find the word "sacrifice" a little too big for describing the trivial fact that we have to make decisions between two things we desire.
OTOH, the subject of this thread doesn´t involve material resources - which tend to be limited.
And, yes, there often are conflicting emotions (intrapersonally and/or interpersonally). I don´t dispute this. It´s just that I have never found keeping other persons hostage with reference to my emotions has yielded good results (in terms of happiness as well as self-actualization).
The agreed upon fact that the emotions of two persons can be in conflict already implies that not all emotions can be lived out and/or be sheltered. Now, no matter if we call our will to abstain from living upon a certain emotion so that the other person´s emotion is sheltered and gets space to be lived out "suppression" or "sacrifice" - it´s inevitably going to happen (and if we don´t do it voluntarily, the conflict still will end with one person´s emotion not getting space). So I´m not sure how you manage to hold this against my approach (by giving it a negative label: "suppression") and - when it comes to your approach - praise it as "sacrifice".
You "suppressed"/"sacrificed" your desire for a coat etc., and quite apparently it proved - on another (dare I say: higher?) level - beneficial to you. You could give your kids gifts, and that promised and turned out to enhance the well-being of all people involved more than buying yourself a coat. Which suggest to me that the choice of either term (sacrifice, suppression) isn´t really catching the most significant parts of this process.
I am basically proposing the same (I just don´t happen to think of it as suppression or sacrifice - but ultimately of being in my own best interest), and I am wondering why you make out such an essential difference between the two.
As for the conflict between my, say, jealousy and my desire for the other person to freely explore whatever she finds worthy exploring, I would rate the latter way higher. Thus, in your terminology, I guess I would have to say "I sacrifice my jealousy to my latter desire".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
