Skip to main content

Control vs Compassion




I think I have a tendency to want to control other people’s lives. It may sound selfish when I see it this way, but I like to think that it’s a subconscious motive that originates in how I see my life and others.

I like to think that what we put out in the world can be overall generalized as ‘energy’. I converse with people, I share things and do certain things with the intent of putting out ‘positive energy’. Hoping that an exchange of opinions or values or forms of expression will assist the people around me to grow in a desirable manner, to grow as a whole.

But sometimes I get carried away. I get into these habitual cycles of sharing certain things or strongly stating my point of view in an effort to change people’s view entirely. This is when the line crosses over to selfish. This is something that I am willing to fix every day. This is something that takes gradual compromise, empathy and understanding. Moreover, this is the source of these things.

We are unable to understand what anyone is going through, no matter how well they try to verbalise it. Because we are all made up of so many moments unique to our own lives that shape us in to who we are. That shape us to understand the world in our own ways.
So I believe it takes skill to find the balance between sharing or wanting to contribute and not crossing the line into control or exertion. Because it is not your role as an individual to change another individual’s life completely. It is your role to contribute your energy, to bounce off ideas and to be flexible with perspectives, regardless of what you or others originally may think. It is your role to understand boundaries of others and to know when to let things be. To me, this is true empathy and understanding.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there an emotional brain? Pt.1(intro)

Is there an emotional brain? As much as we like simplicity in models of science, and the locationist view makes things easier for us to understand, research points to the answer that emotions are not localized to one specific brain region or circuit.  The limbic system hypothesis was put forth by Paul MacLean in the 1950s (although some theories led up to this prior such as the Papez circuit). It divides the more deeply fundamental structures with those that are thought to have developed further on in evolution, in ‘higher’ mammals. The limbic system is one component of the triune brain theory that divides the brain up into the neocortex, mammalian brain and reptilian brain. The reptilian brain is proposed to be in charge of responses for survival such as breathing and heart rate. The reptilian brain is called so due to its structures being found also in reptiles. The limbic system is thought to have developed later in evolution and is commonly thought to be the mammalian brain.

history

Sometimes I think to myself whether all of what we are searching for, will be frowned upon in the future, will be laughed at for all of our efforts As this may be some kind of crazy movement created by delusional people. But this shouldn't stunt us from the curiosities and the explorations within the world we are in now. Some beliefs in the past may seem crazy to us now... but this is just humans trying to explain the world from what they see, from the information that we have. And that is the hesitance that comes from scientists making a statement definitive. Because all of this 'truth' may not be so when future explorers look back at our work, But knowing that the reason they stand in their 'developed' position is because we did exploring for   them, into uncertain waters that are clear as ever to them in their present moment.

its like

i have voices inside my head but then i have a consciousness over that voice inside my head that tells me that these are just voices inside my head. its tiring