This is just one of my ramblings I wrote last week; it was originally supposed to be a journal entry, but it kind of turned into an essay. It's pretty dry and doesn't make perfect sense, I must admit, but I'm proud of the fact that I wrote all this crap in forty minutes. Hey, I was having a bad day. So if you don't want to get more bored than you already are, don't read this.
Tensions between an individual and his respective community can often result in quite life-changing dilemmas. There is obviously, the choice to conform or the choice to remain static. One cannot speak generally of the benefits of either as both require a deeper look at the smokiness of one's morals. Certainly, one would recall a moment from childhood when one outwardly rebels toward parents, and as such, receives punishment--or is it discipline? The morality of decisions far greater is what determines, indirectly, the course of one's mindset and one's future. Often there exists a deal of animosity between the "offendor" and the established. And indeed this is a factor behind rebellion.
Naturally one of certain age would think of parents--and how their many conflicts had made or broken their relationships. But in the end, all the strife tends to do is to give one a better understanding of their respective lives and how a similar situation would affect a similar person. Clichéd as it is, it's a principle of sorts that remains true.
Now, there also is the somewhat well-known approach to dealing with said "tensions"--and that is simply dialectical. This presents the idea that relationships with one another are dynamic. So they will change, and they can change; it's just a matter of applying that change. Thus lies the difficulty in "moving together" or "moving apart" as a balance needs to be found. Certain aspects of either psyches maintain that the contradictory parts of each personality be able to rationally interact. This sub-approach of maintenance allows one to obtain compromise in the face of great tension. Which makes personal change more of a phenomenon rather than something that is expected to be. This fairly radical viewpoint obviously differs from that of the "easier said than done" reverse mentality.
Often, the issue is close-mindedness of certain individuals. This refers to the tension experienced due to the wanting to suitably connect and the wish to maintain a unique identity. Retaining boundaries is also a sensitive issue. And one additionally would attribute such behavior to an inbred sense of stability (as opposed to volatility in a particular relationship). These multiple contradictions are the objects which need to be dealt with in a reasonable manner. Though complications may render some things near impossible for circumstances, the solutions are generally very simple. The most apparent is just the selection of one "way" over another. Others include a self-quarantine answer to the problem, overlooking and neutralizing one's own actions sensibly, and of course redefining a personal feel to the mutual thinking process. Not necessarily steps, of course, or even suggestions for that matter, but certainly they remain means to a disputably peaceful end, the converse which happens more often than not.
Personally, though, it is always a fine idea to reflect on one's own experience to give a better understanding of the actual spirit of reducing such tensions. For example, my father and I had numerous issues and arguments which were not infrequent; the problems were definitely tertiary for the most part, and as I remained a "threat" and a family aspect "perpendicular" or "tangential" to the original conflict, it was not uncommon for bitter remarks and thoughts to be traded. The latter which, I accept, would possibly be more harmful to the mutual psychology. Over time, however, I simply learned to ignore barbs and resist the temptation to make my point (valid as it may have been) just to put down someone. I had found that the better action was to prove myself by stoicism of the mind--or to merely inject nothing, to destroy the argument/conflict and the aggressor by ignoring them both. And soon progression would lead from the neutral action the the progressive as unseen acts of kindness would be found as natural, in my mind.
Indeed the strangeness of such a relationship might contribute to one's future relationships; more of a must rather than a "will be" makes the application of such life lessons that much easier. And though the tendency of the human being is to make improvisation and resolve the problem through personal means, it often proved of higher importance to strive in setting common goals, small as they may be, to create a like atmosphere to diminish obvious strife. I conclude that the subject baffles, for lack of a better wording, not the opposing party, but the object if disdain that eventually becomes a subject of resilience--a truly grand look into the heart of a person.
Thanks for reading. Hope you're still awake.
By 