What I have observed is that,
There are 2 factors that determine a person’s actions:
# The situations/circumstance/surroundings/cultural-setups/environments (their adaption, fitting-in strategies, accommodation to all of that etc.)
# Their own interests/desires (which they pursue)
Generally, in the transmission from say parents to children (in the flow of genetic lineage),
Only the real essential desire of the parent is transferred to the child.
And whatever the parent did as adaptation, accommodation, and adjustment based on family/cultural/socio-political pressures of those times, does not pass over to the children.
This is because the children were brought up at a different world-time/age, with different family/socio-cultural/political/situational variables.
The world itself is at a different generation when the children are born,
And therefore the children adapt to those conditions,
And only the essential desires of the lineage continue through them.
Say a father worked loyally in a single company all his life as a duty,
While the son decides to not work at all, and only work on his private passions.
On the surface, this looks like the father and son are entirely different.
But a more in-depth examination might reveal,
The father never had any real heart vested in the company affairs.
He may have done all of it from familial/moral/socio-cultural pressures,
While his real heart desire was in his personal interests.
So it is only the real heart desire that passes on to the son.
This can be taken much deeper than this,
But even now, with only this much penetration into the matter,
The son’s decisions do not look so outlandish in the light of this understanding, right?
Another instance would be,
If the mother dutifully married, had children, spent her whole life entangled to them etc.,
Her daughter might take up a completely different meaning in life and become ultra career focused.
Again, on the surface, both look completely different.
But on deeper examination,
Maybe the mother, as an adaptation to her circumstances, went along with that wave,
But her real desire was to fuse her identity into something larger.
Her situation might have been such that the role of caretaker was what allowed her this larger experience and expansion.
So the daughter in alternate times, may seek to fulfill this same desire by absorbing herself into the corporate world and its goals (career).
It is the same desire expressing itself in 2 different situations and times.
This is actually still just slightly under the surface, but even this level of understanding reveals the continuity and similarity of desires passing through.
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.
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.
The bell curve of humanity can be seen as 3 regions:
Regressive —– Masses —– Progressive
It can also be seen as the bell curve of evolution.
What we generally refer to as society,
Is the system that reflects the implicit and explicit collective agreement of mainly the masses.
This can be loosely referred to as “Collective Consciousness”.
The kingdom of society has all 3 elements: tamas, rajas, sattva.
Tamas = Inertia (Decadence)
Rajas = Activity (Dynamic maintenance)
Sattva = Seeking the higher (To evolve, improve, and transform).
Since my earliest memory,
I have always had a deep wonder, curiosity, and fascination,
On the possibilities of relating with others.
Interacting with others felt like a great stage,
Participating in group dance or song,
Like a blending of minds creating great harmonies,
Grand tapestries and patterns of rich meaning.
I would imagine all the possibilities in fantasy/dreaming mostly,
With the actual reality serving more as the base context for their concoction.
If reality was “1” (the actuals), My imagination was “100+”(the possibilities).
Maybe “10” of those imaginations would fit under “appropriate”.
The rest would be out of bounds of appropriate social conduct.
This used to always perplex me,
About why so little happens in reality out of all the infinite possibilities.
About why so little was permitted, and why so much was not?
What decided what was allowed and disallowed?
I used to wonder and contemplate on this.
I never received much social conditioning in my early years,
So my mind/imagination was always open.
While approaching others in my early days,
I would be super open, innocent, with total trust.
Then I realized all the boundaries one by one,
And adapted myself to the socialization agreements.
But within me, even today, I am still as free as the wide open sky.
Nobody has ever given more freedom than I have given myself, by a very long shot.
The initial exploration period in my life,
Before the boundaries were understood,
Were some of my happiest times.
Because I experienced that inner sky like freedom expressing itself.
Once I understood the limits, then I reduced myself.
After understanding all the boundaries the hard way,
And due to my hyper restrictive outer environments in childhood,
I sort of became a bit of a recluse.
However the deep fascination I had in this field,
Led me to doing a lot of research and exploration,
And learning a lot in the process.
Nowadays, I test the waters by opening up a bit,
Setting an example, and seeing.
If the other does not open up as much, then I bring back the older boundaries.
Even if the other does not respond, I feel satisfied though,
That I have at least shown the possibility as an offer.
If the other from their side takes liberties with me, or extends interest,
That also frees me up to expand myself and extend a relationship to that extent.
# However I behave with the other,
I set an example/model to follow.
# However they behave with me,
They set an example/model to follow.
# Whatever topics I initiate, I open those doors.
# Whatever topics they initiate, they open those doors.
All of these fields should be out of business/economy game rules.
Else they degenerate into the exact opposite of what they are supposed to stand for.
Cooperation serving Competition:
This is like most team sports.
The cooperation is within the team,
But it is meant to serve the higher goal of competition.
Competition serving Cooperation:
This is like the musician maestros of ancient India.
They would all bring their instruments,
And compete to best the other’s performance in each round,
But all of it serving to elevate the level of the art form itself.
My orientation has been towards ‘Competition serving Cooperation’.
Which is of all of us working towards a higher purpose/goal,
While also competing/playing with each other for fun,
Or competing in a way that ultimately serves all.
Like a “win-WIN” (serving as an encouragement for the smaller win),
Instead of a “WIN-LOSE” which is winning at the COST of the other.
Most of the activities I see in the world today,
School, College, Political Debates, Work, Sports, Making money, Business,
Almost all of it seems like the case of “Cooperation for Competition”.
Where everything happens in the same level playing field,
As a kind of zero-sum game,
In a quest for supremacy,
Where it is every man for himself.
Recognition of something is the primary element.
That is, recognition of value/importance and so on.
Once there is a shared recognition of a certain quality/thing,
It is then formalized in society by assigning a monetary value to it.
This creates an ontology/taxonomy/hierarchy/system of “objective” value assignment.
Here objective means the concretization of the subjective-common-agreement.
Alternatively, there is also ‘informal recognition’.
Informal recognition is like when you help your neighbors/relatives/friends etc.
That is also valued/recognized,
And it may give you other rewards like good-will, rapport etc.,
But it may not involve money-exchange.
The things in society that are assigned the highest monetary value,
Are the things that form the “backbone” of society.
They are a reflection of what society(the formalized agreement) prioritizes,
And what society deems as the most important or least important.
Money is literally the measurement of this formalized-value assignment,
Just like how we measure length in terms of feet, inches, and so on.
Money is the life-blood of society,
And just like real blood,
It basically is the carrier that distributes resources,
To every part of the various societal-systems working together.
Some people before starting any activity would always ask,
“Where is the money in this?” or “How much money would this make?”.
Such people are essentially looking for “Formalized Social-Recognition”.
In other words, they have fused their value-system with societal-values.
If you have a value system very different from the society you live in,
Then money would only be a means to an end,
And not a direct measure of your value/contribution itself.
If what you value deeply, is not recognized by society at all,
Then you fall off the map of “formalized valuation”.
The value of your contribution then would be left to subjective evaluation.
Society is a reflection of collective consciousness.
Collective consciousness can be seen as sort of like a bell curve,
With the majority-80% falling close to center line.
The majority have a value-system that is fused with the societal-value system.
It could also be said that it is the commonality of the majority,
That even enables and empowers a structure like society to thrive in the first place.
Money seen as a direct measure of contribution and value,
Is relevant to mainly this set of people.
If you value-system is too far out,
Too regressive or too progressive,
Then you would fall on the ends of this bell curve.
And money would thus become less and less relevant here,
Except as more of a means to an end.
The whole human organization is:
Giants standing on top of shoulders of giants, standing on top of shoulders of giants…and so on.
Differences are obvious —- Similarities/connection/unity are non-obvious.
The process of “enculturation/socialization” is the programming that initiates a child into the mega-giant of society/culture.
All the smaller giants stand on the shoulder of this giant, and the fractal goes on getting more and more refined.
There is a difference between:
INTERNALIZATION/IDENTIFICATION —and—– CONFORMITY
They both may look the same from the outside in actions/behavior.
But they are coming from vastly different places.
Identity is the passport to get into anything in society.
There are doors and doors everywhere.
You are let in, if you conform.
But without identification/internalization = there is no actual deep investment.
All investment in society then is only out of “VESTED-INTEREST”.
And it is difficult then to take on too much.
Because heart of hearts you would want to return to your identification.
Society in such a case, is not perceived as a HOME w/ BELONGING,
Rather it is perceived as a place you have to conform to get certain needs met for your real identity which lies elsewhere.
There is a difference between:
INSECURE SOCIETIES —and—- SECURE SOCIETIES.
When insecure, societies impose that all its denizens cooperate. It is forced to a much higher degree.
While secure, societies include people who do their own thing also, as long as they do not disturb the working of the societal machine much.
In the light of all this:
Deep mental illness is an ALIENATION of COLOSSAL PROPORTIONS,
Because you are literally disconnected from the largest giant itself (that of
And are dehumanized and sent to the mental asylums,
And other such quarantine-institutions etc.