Recently, I have discovered that purpose and order are the same thing. It may sound a deduction which borders on the extreme, but I think in the fundamental, and my conclusions are rarely satisfying (or even considered seriously) if they are not definitive. I, myself, feel threatened by this idea, since I do not have a good relationship with order, nor were my attempts to master it successful. The ability to be impulsive and spontaneous is detrimental to my mental fluidity and well-being. I am, however, aware enough to recognize that too much freedom, too little structure is akin to stagnancy; sometimes a direct cause of it. I had to change my outlook on routine, and start viewing it as a guiding tool instead of a boundary. It's concerning that I do not cope well with strict outlines in the first place, because the world is much more pliant and malleable inside of them. The more you know!
I had to discover the different ways a lack of structure could manifest in a realistic setting. I have seen: Aimless Routine, and Aim Without Routine. Aimless Routine is vague but consistent landmarks of a lifestyle; comfortable, efficient, time-friendly, familiar; best for memory and convenience. Aim Without Routine is energy without containers, inconsistent spurts of effort; adaptable, fast-paced, innovative, anticipating; best for flexibility and quick generation of solutions. Nothing in life is completely separate from a system, as we well know. We do fall under predefined philosophies, lifestyles, traditions, and routines, even the most nonconforming of us. We either adhere to these structures by custom, or by need. In other words, the lack of structure in this context refers to a lack of personal design, not general structure, which is impossible. A personal design is in no way an invention on new and never-previously-experienced structure, but rather a meticulously tailored one which is based on very basic and intuitive needs. The attention is admittedly less centred towards maintaining the productive-social balance, and more focused on the personal-productive balance, personal coming first. However, the percentages will differ from person to person; in some cases, the productive-social aspects of performance are part of the individual's personal needs, for example; which is to say that this structure serves one's well-being first anyway, even if it results in productivity.
I'm a firm believer that aim towards social harmony without any conception (or consideration) of individual experience is ultimately futile, and so is marginal focus on the individual experience. It is important to understand empathy and detachment well enough to know when to employ one or the other. An individual-focused person, for example, may be prone to having empathy towards anyone as long as they can jump to their perspective and live in it for a while. This creates a paradox, because that person will ultimately have a blurry sense of self, and will over complicate morality; and we need morality to be functional above all in our modern world. Additionally, it will be harder to have empathy towards groups of people unless they are considered individually, which is realistically impossible and mentally taxing. These people may have cognitive empathy, and they may recreate perspectives for their own understanding in order to be able to live them emotionally. On the other hand, a socially-focused person will find it more difficult to accept or appreciate people's shortcomings, quirks, and personal characteristics, unless they were very close to them. The range and depth of possible human experiences may be missed by someone like that, out of rigidity of template; meaning that the possible combinations of individual experience cannot all be covered by their own efforts in consideration, but only "felt" through their emotional empathy. A person like that does not need to fully understand a situation before they take an emotional and moral stance on it; what is evident suffices. Communities thrive on their generalization when it is positive, because there lies a sense of equality it.
The two extremes are flawed, with the very same consequence: Alienation.
Alienation in its core is a disregard for needs. The disregard of one's needs is an intimate betrayal; and the disregard for the other's needs is discourtesy. Both very absurd, because we owe ourselves and the world a caring contribution. The disaster is that we created a world in which both exist copiously; a lonely polite paradise. Achieving perfect harmony with the self or other people, separately, will not spare us the alienation, because then we would end up causing it even if we avoid it.
In an era of less distractions, it wouldn't be idealistic to say that the moderate middle is possible. But, I have never read nor heard of an era of pure awareness, nor sufficient courage, nor such willingness to cooperate, because I have never known a human so free of being human. A good world is in the belly of outrageous and unashamed hope; outrageous and unashamed hope lives in the hearts of good people.
Now, what does all of that have to do with personal design? Very simply, good personal design is either tending to oneself generously for the purpose of being of service to the other, or tending to the other for the purpose of being of service to oneself. Means and intentions do not matter as long as the outcomes are fruitful. We are not static, and our resentfulness can plant trees just as our devotion can burn forests. We can both fool and honor the human in us. A life without purpose leaves space for chaos, and a life without order eventually tramples purpose. We are all owed purpose and order by the very same world which conceived us, for the world which conceived us, and the chaos that is consuming our reality now is proof of that.
Comments
Post a Comment