Everyone gravitates towards freedom of some kind

I feel like every person finds their niche,
Where they seek their freedom from.

Some like the freedom of having plenty of money,
And all of the potential/possibility that brings.

Some like the freedom of enrolling into the institution of marriage.
This frees them from the prior insecurity of relationship,
And now they have a safe space to build a bond with the other person.
Then once you have a stable bond, you can have the additional joy of having children,
And having the joy of sharing a profound relationship with a few beings/souls.
Then there is also the social dimension which approves of this and gives you the freedom of social connection (camaraderie/rapport) with all of the others who are similarly married and having children.
And so on.

Some like the freedom of being a nomad and traveling and exploring different parts of the world.

Some like the freedom that the latest technology brings.
Like having the most powerful computer or smartphone or camera etc.
These uber level tools help them access many kinds of potential experiences.

Some like the freedom of buying their own land and house,
And making whatever they want and however they want in that space.

Some like the freedom they get when working for a stable job in an MNC.
Because this frees them from job and social insecurity.
It provides a common frame (a shared environ) for many people to collude with and connect to.
Now they have a safe container to thrive in and explore all its possibilities.
Every company premise nowadays is like a small township right? (before 2020)

Some like the freedom of sexual conquest.
That is, working to making themselves as desirable as possible,
So that they can have the greatest freedom to choose mates and explore that aspect of human nature.

Some like the freedom of the internet in terms of acquiring all kinds of knowledge they are interested in.
The internet is like an unlimited library of knowledge giving immense possibilities for learning any kind of thing.

The list is endless.
As of me, where I find my freedom from, is in the niche of creative self expression.
I get it from expressing/translating/conceptualizing/depicting/articulating/symbolizing and sharing the flow of visions/insights/ideas appearing in my inner space.

The 2 kinds of relationships I’ve experienced

I’ve seen 2 kinds of relationships in my life:
# Connections through resonance
# Connections through projection/role-play

Connecting through resonance:
Two minds understand each other when they are attuned/honed to each other,
That is, when both the minds are operating at a similar frequency, they see similar views.

For instance, say you are floating on a hot air balloon.
If you spoke to someone on the ground, his view would be entirely different from yours.
You may be able to talk a little about his surroundings, because you know where he is standing,
Similarly, he might see your balloon and ask you a few questions about that.
But overall, there would not be much to share or connect about.
But suppose you spoke to another person in another hot air balloon at the same height,
Then so much of the view is shared, and thereby you both can easily connect, right?

Two minds can connect if they share the same level of subtleness of perception.
I call this the “LOC” – The level of consciousness of the subtle body.
Generally, things like world view, concerns, ideas, perceptions, thoughts, feelings can be easily shared with another being at the same LOC level.

There is ‘what you are seeing’, and ‘from where you are seeing’.
The LOC is about ‘from where you are seeing’.
If the ‘from where you are seeing’ is common,
Then understanding each other would be very effortless.

Connecting to another being who shares your LOC level,
I call ‘connecting via. resonance’.

Whatever you say to them will be understood fairly easily.
Actually you both already see from the same place.
The talking is more a celebration of the connection already active.
It is a sort of mutual enrichment.
Often there is instant recognition here.
This kind of relationship does not need much time,
And feels comfortable and deep at the start itself.

The other kind of relationship I have had is via. projection/role-play.
These kinds of relationships are mostly from external situations (sharing the same environment, context etc.)

What are called ‘situational relationships’ would come under this.
# Like the roles of being a colleague/coworker/college lab partner/project partner/college friend in the same class, neighbor next door etc.

# I would also include specific interest group connections under here.
Because interest group connections are also somewhat goal based – Check this out, What do you think of this? etc.
They are fairly circumscribed and specific to a certain frame and scope.

# Also, any work related relationships would come in this category.
Like even the relationship you may have with people standing in the same queue as you to buy movie tickets.

# Even healing group members are not necessarily at the same LOC level.
For instance, Two people might connect with each other from their unresolved anger issues, or through their common addiction to something, but their LOCs could be vastly different.

# Even relations with family members, relatives etc. could fall here.
Because they too are certain frames of role-play.

# Even romantic relations are often projection/fantasy/role-play based.
If it does not have enough of resonance elements, then the relationship would fizzle out quickly, i.e. after the ‘enjoyment of the novelty/projection/role-play/fantasy/specific-quality-admiration based interaction’ is completed.

The reject first pattern – active vs passive approach

The active approach (in second person narration):
Whenever you want, you create/resurrect the relation,
Whenever you want, you terminate it.
You want the power to control/direct/create/destroy/determine relationships.
So that you are never in that position again,
Where you land up with rejection from the other side,
Without any power to make them want or desire you,
Where you are fully open, yet abandoned, 
Like what happened in childhood.
Because you were perceived to be unlikeable/unlovable/ugly/unworthy/disappointing?
So that you are never abandoned again without your control,
You do the reject-first strategy and do the abandonment preemptively by yourself.
In a way, you inflict the same punishment onto the other (and to yourself) that you felt was inflicted on you.
The reasoning is:
“If I expect that you will reject me, I’d rather reject first,
So that what is anyways inevitable is something I perform consciously,
Rather than it coming and hitting me from behind unexpectedly and shockingly out of the blue.
If I consciously expect it, and preemptively inflict it on myself and the other,
Then I will not get hurt again like that, and it’ll therefore be much less painful.”

So the guiding force of this behavior is a certainty wrt. the expectation of rejection/abandonment.
That is, of people ultimately being disappointed/angry/frustrated with you and leaving/abandoning you.

All of the above is the active approach.
But there is also a passive approach.
There are 2 strategies to deal with rejection, forming a polarity:
Passive —– Active
The active one seeks to start and end relations as per their own whim – seduce/idealize then devalue/abandon.
The passive one lives alone in receptivity, and let what comes come, and let what goes go.
He does not seek what he needs/desires/wants, but lets everything come to him by the other’s seeking of their needs/desires/wants.

It is like:
# The Bee —–vs—– the Flower.
# Power —–vs—- Receptivity.
# Male (or rejected female) —–vs—– Female (or male with suppressed/inhibited will)
# Outward looking eyes —–vs—– Inward looking eyes
# Extroverted consciousness —-vs—– Introverted consciousness
# Things will come to you if you seek for it —-vs—- Things will come to you by what you are.
# Projection —-vs—- Introjection (of the same essential rejection theme)
# I will use everything (appearance of selfishness)  —-vs—- I will get used by everything (appearance of selflessness)
# I am perfect, others must change —-vs—- I must change, others are perfect.
# Change the environment to suit you —vs—- Change the self to suit the environment.
# Inner rigidity, Outer mobility —-vs—– Inner mobility, Outer rigidity
# Borderline —-vs—— Narcissist
# Unconscious of self, Conscious of others —-vs—– Conscious of self, Unconscious of others.
# Controlling others, leaving self uninhibited —-vs—- Controlling one’s own desires, self inhibited.

Both are narcissistic wounds in essence and reactions to the same root condition:
# I will be what I am, not change anything, and rather search for the one who will love me unconditionally —-vs—- I am not good enough, and must make myself worthy, so that then everyone will come to me.
Both of these are opposite polarizations of the same theme, and therefore will tend to get attracted to each other and play out the dance.
The attraction is because of the same root similarity and resonance of the theme of rejection. 
They are just the 2 opposing ways of dealing with the same dilemma,
From the same magnet with its 2 opposite poles.

Bonding with ideals vs. real people

When mothers or fathers do not extend a bond to their children,
The children may create an “idealized fantasy parent” and then seek for a reflection of that in the world.
The reasons for why the mothers/fathers did not extend the bond could be related to their own past.
After all they too were children at one time, subject to parents who might have done the same to them, and so on.
The parents themselves might be victims of the same, pursuing an ongoing project of meeting an impossible ideal [parent imposed or self created (usually an oppositional reaction)] and redeeming themselves.
So like the game of passing the parcel, they pass on their own failed project to their children, who then either continue that or choose otherwise.

PS: The roles of parent and child are in a kind of looping rotation.
…Parent -> Child[Parent -> Child[Parent -> Child…

So this goes on and on in the threads of family lineage and genetics.
In such cases, each next generation gets wounded by the projection of the ‘previous generation ideals’ on them.
Then the next generation either make their own counter ideals or try to fulfill the projected ideals, and accordingly seek in the world.
For such family systems, whole threads of genetic lineage then live off an attachment system that is entirely ungrounded/disconnected and based in the imaginal/imaginary spaces of ‘fantasy/ideals/mythic creations’.
It is a kind of primal disconnection and dissociation from reality itself, by moving attachment to the imaginary rather than what actually exists.

This also has a close connection to idol (imaginary gods) worship,
Which is also based on projection of ideals.

When forming relationships/bonds, I’ve noticed there are 2 clear categories:
# The people who bond in reality/actuality
# The people who bond in idealization/imagination
I’ll talk about the 2nd category here.
When both the partners meeting each other have an attachment to their internal idealized figure, they start to project the ideal onto each other.
The agreement then is more like a fantasy role-play:
“You play my fantasy, and I will play yours.”

There are different relational dynamics that can happen from here.
One of them is:
One of the parties projects the ideal onto the other, and the other tries to live up to that to secure the bond.
Generally the one with the narcissistic wound will take it upon himself/herself to live up to the other’s ideal projection.
“If only I can improve myself, strive, and be good enough, to meet the other’s ideal, then I can secure my bond with them.”
The one projecting the ideal does so from some kind of primal entitlement that somehow escaped the socialization process.
They are like the demanding baby that expects the whole world to come and serve their needs.

A relationship like this could work, if the fantasy projections are doable and somehow align (socialization generally tempers the ideals to realistic levels).
But most of the time, the ideals are intense and impossible.
In a way, by very definition, ideals are impossible right?
Reality is always something else.
So often in such relationships, there is alternating role play,
Of the projector and the adapter.
Both the parties wound each other’s real selves with each other’s ideals.

The bond is never secured from start to end.
However these relationships kindle the inner flames of longing, passion, intensity, purpose, hope and other such feelings.
In that sense they are like an adventure and gratify you with the above feelings.
They make you forget your pain of disconnection and lostness.
They are exciting but empty and illusory – like an extended more involving movie.

Imagine you were really thirsty and ran with full passion and joy towards a mirage in the desert.
This experience is something like that.
When you do reach the actual sand patch where the mirage was seen,
The water has disappeared, and now the mirage has receded to the horizon again.
This is how ideals are unsatisfiable and impossible.
Even the conception of these ideals keep shifting to more and more complex and impossible forms.
No depiction can fully capture the fantasy/ideal.

Various traumas and deprivations may be instrumental in what directions and forms these ideals take.
Ultimately we long for the infinite.
And when we focus this longing onto the realm of relationships,
The above patterns happen.
Relationships are a stepping stone and not the end goal itself.
If seen that way, and if both the partners are actually seeking god through the relationship,
The relationship will only raise them higher.

Delving deep into the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude

What is the deeper reason behind the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude?
What is the payoff of seeing something as desirable or undesirable?
What is possible to get and what is impossible to get?
Generally, we’d like to see what is ‘possible to get’ as desirable,
And what is ‘impossible to get’ as undesirable.
That way, the psyche remains stable, and its efforts bring continual fruits,
Without wasting effort on what is impossible.

I am going to look at the ‘grapes are sour’ attitude in the context of relationships.
Generally to bond with someone, you idealize them,
Which is the basis of the whole romantic fantasy.
That they are good for you, best for you, the perfect match, that they will raise you higher and so on.
Idealization is the process of desiring itself.
That is what motivates you to seek anyone i.e. to seek to include them as a part of yourself.
The whole life of the ego is the Kohut’s tension arc,
Driving between where you are now and the image of your ideal.

On the other hand,
Devaluation is the process of avoiding/fearing (vs. idealizing/desiring).

As an ego, one would idealize that which is in one’s interest, and devalue that which is not in one’s interest.
What serves one —-vs—- What does not serve one.
What is life positive —-vs—- What is life negative.

However this does not explain the ‘death drive’.
What causes a person to consume poisons? severely deprive themselves? self torture? and actively seek death and self-destruction?

The child idealizes the caregiver to bond with them.
Esp. the infant idealizes the mother,
Because the mother is the source of life and protection for its initial years.
So this is where the primary attachment is created.
A certain primary relational structure gets formed in those years.
If the mother herself is lost, and the birth was from unconscious compulsion,
And if the mother is severely misattuned to the child’s needs,
Then the child’s needs go severely unmet.

If its needs are met highly randomly and inconsistently,
Then it will develop disorganized attachment

(that includes anxious-preoccupied and fearful- avoidant attachment patterns).
If its needs are met consistently,
Then it will develop secure attachment.
If its needs are not met at all, even once,
Then it will become a dismissive-avoidant.

Basically for a dismissive-avoidant,
Opening up to an other fully is anathema to them.
It is as good as committing suicide,
It will de-structure the entire psyche they have built.
They live only relying on themselves for almost everything.
Now this naturally idealizes self-reliance,
While decrying dependence of any sort.
The world-view formed by a person with this attachment style,
Precisely mirrors his interaction with his caregivers.
The image could be something like:
“Everyone is selfish and serving their own interests.
So I too will do the same.
Nobody cares about me unless it benefits them.
I must avoid dependence at all costs.”
Something like that,
And there are many layers to this.
There is grief/sadness and great anger towards others.
Even ignoring something is a form of hostility.
The dismissive-avoidant may ignore others with such intensity.
In the deeper psyche, it is a form of punishing them for what they did.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine, what they did to him.
RULE: “We do onto others, what others did onto us.”
So their treatment of others is a reflection and it mirrors how they were treated in their formative years.
What matters here is “FORMATIVE” years.
Because that is the time the ‘Self structure’ is formed.
Thereafter the entire experience of the world is in relation to that structure.
So for the dismissive avoidant, there is no alternation between grapes are good and grapes are sour.
They don’t even talk about it, in fact they don’t talk about anything related to their needs for relationship. It stays preserved in their own unconscious darkness .
It is just stuck on “Grapes are sour”, the idealization part has been repressed and buried into their unconscious.
Because if that is brought out, it will dismantle their entire independence idealizing structures.
The irony is, it is traumatic for them to see the world as good.

It is much easier to see the world as terrible and keep finding more proof for that.
Because that would justify their position right, of being to themselves and independent like an island.
They believe they have separated themselves from the morass of an ugly uncaring hostile humanity.

Generally the ‘grapes are sour’ experience applies to people who go through its opposite too of ‘grapes are wonderful’.
It is the alternation between the 2 that gives the strong experience in either direction.
Since in their formative years, their needs were intermittently met, followed by long periods of the opposite, it is a torturous confusion.
It is like living in a place where a gale, hurricane, flood, earthquake and other natural calamities keep striking your house again and again, causing you to somehow survive that and build your house once again from scratch maybe in a different area, only for that to happen again, and only for you to once again build a new house, and so on.
It becomes like an eternal improvisation exercise,
Where all relations are nulled, and where you try all over again and again.
This is basically a situation of high insecurity.
Where all “basis, rooting, hinging, foundation” is lost on a dime again and again.

This can be quite maddening for them.
Why? Because the projections wildly alternate,
Swinging from one extreme to another extreme,
Canceling everything out as they move from extreme to extreme.

For instance, suppose someone does not like me,
Then I will tend to try to see them as undesirable/terrible, 
Because only then can them not liking me, become a kind of ‘good riddance’, i.e. a good thing.
Else, if I see them as good/desirable, 
Then that means I am not getting access to something good,
And that will entangle my energies where I keep making efforts to try to get them to like me.

So it is better to tune perception to see them as undesirable or poisonous, 
Then them not liking me back will be good and alright, 
Because that would only prove I am good and they are bad.
Else it would turn into, I am bad and they are good, 
And that I have to be the sorry one to change and please them enough for them to accept me.

This is precisely the harrowing attachment struggle.
Preparing the body to bond OR to be alone.
Essentially, for the secure attachment people, the aloneness gets repressed in the unconscious.
For the dismissive-avoidant, the bonding part of them gets repressed in the unconscious.
They both appear to be stable, because of achieving successful repression from moving from chakra 2 to chakra 3.
Whereas, when repression cannot happen easily, because of conflicting caregiver’s attitude and behavior, then it results in the anxious-preoccupied or fearful avoidant,
Depending upon which side the scale veers to.
# If it comes closer to the secure side, then it has greater hope “If I can just try harder this time, I will make it to secure attachment”.
# If it comes closer to the avoidant side, then the hope is towards the opposite “If I can just become independent, then I can get rid of this painful need for others”.

So the scale is:
Dismissive avoidant —- Fearful avoidant –|– Anxious-Preoccupied —– Secure attachment.
This inner drama play between ‘he loves me’ and ‘he loves me not’, happens only with the middle 2. Because it is the middle 2 that are the realm of insecurity.
The dismissive avoidant is sure ‘he loves me not’.
The secure attachment person is sure ‘he loves me’.
So they both are somewhat settled in their lifestyles.

The observer and the observed world

You see the world not as it is (idea of 1 objective world),
But as you are (idea of observer-observed relationality).
The world appears to you in the way you are.
The world changing is you changing.
You changing is the world changing.
There is perfect correspondence.
The self-world pair appear together as one process,
And they also vanish together in the same process.

Generally if the self is relatively more stable than the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like a stable person with a stable view of a fast moving world.
On the other hand, if the self is rapidly changing compared to the world it is in relation to,
Then, you feel like the very viewpoint is shifting and experience of the world becomes more like a dream.

When you open up, the world (as you perceive) opens up.
When you close down, the world closes down.
The violence within you is the violence in the world.
The peace within you is the peace in the world.
When you are unstable, the view of the world is unstable.
When you are stable, the view of the world is stable.
The true objective nature of the world is Shunya/Indeterminate.

The body-world appears like a hologram.
Like how every drop of the ocean is the ocean contained in the drop.
Both the body and mind are actually external to your real nature.
When both the body and mind are witnessed as objects,
Then you realize the transcendent space.

The inside-out life expression

I’m looking at the perspective of how life expresses itself from inside out.
The something that seems to come from nothing…
The potentialities/fires that seem to arise in the inner space…
It starts off from the pure desires/abstract feelings,
And then projects and focuses itself into the outer realm.
I feel the very act of being alive is the burning of these inner fires.

Using 2nd person perspective narration:
Your life in the world,
Is like the sex between your inner fires with the world.
You are always in the state of sex (as a verb).
Your inner fires are penetrating into the world and that is what allows you to see it.
In fact whatever you see is what your inner fires are sex-ing with.
So you could say, you are always in relationship, and relating.
All experience is from relating.
This act of relate-ing, sex-ing, is going on and on, and is content agnostic.
It is like how when your eyes are open, you simply keep seeing, no matter what is in front of you.
That faculty is simply shining its light unconditionally on whatever is outside.
Similarly your life energies are simply in a state of relating and sex, being content agnostic.
This is where I think the sayings that ‘we are love itself’ come from.
Because all that you experience, is from this unconditional perfusion into the world, propelled by this longing force we call love.

The fire within burns unconditionally,
And unconditionally burns all that it touches,
And unconditionally lights up everything around it.
This is true for all of life i.e. the non-physical fire that animates.
All life is this unconditional fire.
This burning, and lighting up, is a kind of touch.

Even light falling on something is like the subtlest touch.
‘The burning’ is a more intense penetrative touch.
Even to simply just see something, is to relate with it.

You are Shiva, the fire(energy),
Penetrating into Prakriti(matter),

In a state of unconditional total relating/sex-ing.
ALL relating is sex at various levels – from the lightest touch to the most intense.
What we generally call sex in essence I think is the most intense form of relating.
To be in contact with the fire itself vs. being in its light sphere or heat sphere.
Ultimate sex is the ultimate union.
From this perspective/context: Sex = Yoga = Union.

One’s Personality = One’s Subtle Body.
Personality = Likes and Dislikes,
Forming the 0s and 1s of reality perception (tapestry).
There is a vision/awareness and then there is relationship (1,0) (like, dislike).
# When you like something, you strive to see it more, bring it more into your awareness.
# When you dislike something, you strive to see it less, push away that from your awareness.
So avoidance is a manifestation of dislike,
And approach is a manifestation of like.
Push = Avoidance —vs—– Pull = Approach.
That is the dance of Push-Pull, Attraction-Aversion, Like-Dislike.


The world is a fractal and holographic.
…To Zoom out —— To Zoom in…
In both cases you get infinity.
The more you see in one thing, the more you see everything.
The more you see everything, the more you see in one thing.
The intensity of seeing is independent of the content of seeing.
When we like, we open up the full intensity (towards 1).
When we dislike, we try to close down the intensity (towards 0).
And there are all the inbetween mixtures.
The intensity of this seeing depends on the vibrance of life energies within.
All liberation is about unconditionality, to become unconditional,
To just be full on and on, for its own sake.

The negative, balanced, and positive

Negative |||||| (fighting to survive) |||||| –Balanced/0– |||||| (enhancing self) |||||| Positive.
The self is a structure.
The world is a structure.
The [changing structure of the self] is in a [changing relationship] with the [changing structure of the world].
The 3 happen together and play out as a singular dream of experience.
It is not that any of them is causing the other to happen, though it may appear to be.

# When the world appears to not only maintain the self but also enhance it, there is the experience of nurture, pleasure, and the positive.
# When the world appears to not only not enhance, but also actively violate and attack the self structure, there is the experience of fighting/adapting/resisting to survive, felt as war, pain, and the negative.
# When the world appears to simply maintain you in a kind of zero gain arrangement, it is felt as balance, where there is neither enhancement nor depreciation and things just go on cyclically with no net change.

Completing and freeing the dependence on relationships

All relationships are with parts of ourselves projected out to and as others.
The other is that part of ourselves we have projected out “as” the other.
Thus when we reclaim and own that projected part/aspect,
We neutralize the attraction, and free ourselves.

To give an analogy,
Say you have a backpack full of 100s of smartphones.
But say, you only keep 2 of those phones in your pocket,
And you have no active memory of the backpack’s existence.
Now when you see your friend showing you his phone,
You’ll recognize it, it will look familiar,
You’ll feel attracted towards it, and want to possess it.
But if you realize you are carrying a backpack full of them,
And look inside it,
You’d find that you own that exact same model.
Then there is no longer an attraction to the other’s phone,
But rather, you can enjoy exploring the phone’s features together.
Because now there is a commonality and you also own that same model.

The very act of relating is like a play or dance.
The question is then whether it is conscious or unconscious.
A conscious relationship is like a conscious dance done willingly from both sides,
(i.e. conscious projection and introjection),
While an unconscious relationship is like an unconscious dance happening compulsively from both sides,
(i.e. unconscious projection and introjection).

Once you own all aspects of yourself, you become whole,
And realize that all the others are representative of potentials of your own consciousness.
Then there is nothing that you lack, that can only be got from the other.
Rather, whatever you experience as the other, is instantly owned.

The same would apply to ‘aversion to others’ too.
It is the aversion of the projected aspect of ourselves that we believe we are.
So there can be 2 steps:
First the delusion (false Introjection), and then Projection.
To free the identity from all these introjections,
Is to contemplate and realize our essence is beyond all of this,
And is transcendent of all of these appearances,
Which are all but only one of the possibilities of our infinite nature.

The whole idea of romantic relations may be a social construct

I had this wacky train of thought come to me.
Hope viewers of this post find it entertaining/interesting.

The whole idea of romantic relationship is a societal/cultural/civilizational/human-organization based construct.
If all humans just lived wild,
Males would randomly have sex with 100s of women, and probably have 30-40 children each or more.
The male would not know who his child is.
Also, there seems to be no easily observable causality linking the sexual act to the consequence of pregnancy, and the consequent children that come from that.

There is just a wild instinctual desire for the male.
Similarly women too feel this same wild desire, in certain time periods, and depending on their mood they may run away, resist, or allow the sex to happen.
The man in his prime years would probably be more motivated, since he can easily manage to do 1 or 2 every day without any time-off periods.

The things is, after the sex, the woman too may not be able to causally connect the act of sex to the pregnancy that happens after.
Could she not take it as something that just naturally happened from God?
So the causality is not known from either side, male or female.

The female would bond with the child from the oxytocin and breastfeeding period, and that bond may result in the child and mother recognizing each other.
But there is no way the child will know the father, and neither will the father know.
It could be anybody.
If the woman has had sex with 5 men in a day, and gets pregnant, how would she have any idea who caused the child OR if the 5 acts had anything to do with the child at all?
The first symptoms of pregnancy after all come much later, probably a fortnight later at least, right?

Another aspect is that, if the child grows up away from the mother from a young age, it is doubtful if the mother can recognize the child.
The child may recognize the mother, because her age may not change her appearance as much in the 15-45 zone, but even that may not be easy.

So it seems like the entire notion of civilization/society is to regulate birth and to ensure the spread of resources to everyone.
By putting the responsibility on the father, the father is deterred from following his raw instinct and seeking new mates.
Similarly, a responsibility is also put on the mother, to take care of the child for much longer than she might have otherwise done.
The socialization/enculturation/civilization process is to suppress the sex instinct’s wildness, and instead redirect it into the structures of society, that is, to gain status/position/rank and then seek out the opp-sex of similar status/position/rank etc.
This I guess spawns the whole matrix of mating/romantic fantasy and social status/rank/position/specialness.
The fantasy of being the elite and mating with other elite,
Like the notion of kings/queens, emperors/empresses, prince/princesses and so on.

Names are used in societal organization to TAG the person.
It is an identifier similar to your debit card number, social security number and so on.
Similarly even the roles of mother/father are tags society puts on folk.
Like XXX is the mother of XXXX —–OR—— XXXX is the father of XXXX.
Also the agreement of marriage itself, is really a contract/agreement that serves the children who will be born from the mating of the 2.

Marriage was essentially a system created for the bringing up of children.
Nowadays people use it for companionship, but that is a conscious contract of sort, and it does not have much binding, since both the parties are independent.
It is only the child that is born helpless, and needs a lot of nurture at least till the age of 10.

There seems to big rift in the way “natural biology drives/impulses/instincts” operate and in the way we view everything from the “societal/cultural/civilizational lens”.
The former is generally subsumed into the latter in the process of socialization.
I guess, based on seeing the consequences, ramifications, and aftermath, birth causation etc. – Wise people with vision created systems such as culture/society/civilization to organize and regulate the different drives so that the system could serve in the longer term as a win-win for everyone.
Society/Culture then seems like a long distance vision of how people can live together and mutually fulfill all their needs .
As more needs get satisfied, people may become conscious of finer and subtler needs, which would gradually make their way into modifying society’s formal or informal structures.