I was always a hopeless romantic, and I would always let my heart dictate what I did. But this isn’t a good strategy. It teaches us to betray convictions, and breeds resentment.
I’ve been focusing my energy on finding the perfect balance between being easy-going, open-minded, and having a ‘take no shit’ attitude. That is, I have to defend myself (so as to never become bitter), but also know when to step down (so as to be fair). I have to be ready for life as it comes (and be easy-going), and not reject it when it’s not what I hoped it would be (because it’s so easy to be hard on people for not giving you what you wanted from them).
It’s the only way to go forward that makes sense to me. But it’s hard. Sometimes I don’t know if I’m being unfair when I’m defending myself, or letting people walk all over me when I don’t.
Finding that balance is hard. It’s like trying to maintain a fixed point of attitudes, the hypocrisy that it could result in can be unproductive. But even as times change, there always seems to be an accessible trigger that encourages us to lean towards attraction or repulsion of a circumstance. How does one define a balance between easy-going, open-minded, and a take no shit attitude? As an easy-going, open-minded individual, I am sure that some of my own OCDs present themselves as ‘taking no shit’. In any relationship there’s going to be feedback, and whether it’s negative or positive, we hope that the response is amenable to our values. Certain types of feedback may be construed diverse ways, so whether it’s unfair or not depends on circumstances. There’s no deterministic way of finding out ahead of time, but hopefully the attitudes of those involved aren’t rudimentary emotional reactions. If they manifest themselves as mimicry from last week’s tv episode, time to change channels. I like to believe that, with each experience, my mental safety net is that much more accessible if I choose to use it, still allowing me to be myself and indulge in positive beliefs about people.
>>There’s no deterministic way of finding out ahead of time, but hopefully the attitudes of those involved aren’t rudimentary emotional reactions.
We hope. A good test I [try to always but often fail to] use is to stop and ask myself if the reasons I’m giving for feeling the way I do actually explain why I feel the way I do with consideration of my opinions on how one *should* respond [emotionally] in such situations.
This is my PMS test. I find it works.
>>If they manifest themselves as mimicry from last week’s tv episode, time to change channels.
Great line! But this is a common practice, and not just with television shows. People map their experiences around what is familiar to them. It’s similar to how a baby will map out everything in a room relative to their mother; how public transit users map out locations relative to subway stations and bus stops, and drivers map routes out relative to highways. … But now I’m getting too vague that I’ll bet you can’t see my point…
People map their lives around what is familiar. Ok. Well a lot of people spend more time by a tv than with real people building real relationships. And so for an avid tv-watcher, it’s only natural to describe one’s real relationships in terms of tv-relationships. I’m not disagreeing with your sentiment. It’s just funny to me that you bring up this point because I often remark on how I was referred to as either someone’s “Joey” or some other’s “Jen”, and having either a “Dawson” or a “Pacey”. Ah.. “sweet” high school memories.
Anyway, as regards my “balance”, I just take each decision case-by-case. Truthfully, my intention is the only criterion (analogous to a crucial experiment) that defines my action as either selfish or selfless, so I just try my hardest to be as self-aware as I can be. I suppose this is the real task-at-hand.