Skip to main content

Trust, what’s that?

Prologue - This is the very first ever post written on a mobile phone. It feels like walking in very tight clothes while trying to be graceful and not miss the train at the same time.
Squeezed between the rush of inspiration and the small screen, what a terrible situation.
 Better get this out before an attack of RSI or an unwelcome interruption.

The idea of trust and trustworthiness has been undermining the reality of human connections forever, or  so it seems. It is viewed as an essential element of any emotional architecture, something that could make the whole edifice of a relationship go down.

The premise is that as soon as talking to someone goes beyond the shallow end of trivialities and into ‘soul’ territory, a new feeling is being born. If we did not trust someone, why would we share so much of the unseen self? I am not talking here about heartbreak stories. The unveiling is part of a ritual that new friends-in-the-making like going through. I tell you this and you reciprocate with the same type of story, and we both raise the stakes as we unpeel our memories.

Woe to the delusional mind! Sharing is not about building trust but about letting off a bit of internal steam Although women have a reputation of talking about something dreadful as a way of relieving the pain, men can be just as self-centered. We share the burden for the duration of the exchange. The benefits are obvious and so are the after-effects. Take any good natter and it is worth several expensive trips to therapy.

Does this mean I can trust someone who has bared their affective innards at length? Or that I can be trusted if I go into full confessional mode ?  Categorically no.

Like with lots of other things in the realm of reality, talking is relatively easy. Not cheap, mind you, because it devours so much time. We make and break thousands of verbal pacts throughout our life. It’s highly preferable to ignore self-indiscretions, personal reports and any memory that is not linked to a physical proof, such as “I was inconsolate so I ate all cakes”. The cakes may be gone, but how can you prove that you were desperate and not just greedy?

We’d be better off if trust came as the natural by-product of action carried out and acknowledged to be mutually beneficial.
So many words would remain unspoken and so many disillusions could be kept at bay. If people knew nothing about each other apart from what they experience directly... what a good existence that could be.

My inner life may be a work of art and my past a treasure trove of sordid secrets or exceptional feats, but if I keep promising I will do something and never do it, baring my soul will be just exhibitionism.
I believe there is some law that does not look benevolently at this practice,  but I think it applies to the nether parts only.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A dog's life

This is going to outrage dog lovers, but I think that humans’ tyrannical nature is revealed not just when it enslaves other humans, but also when it enslaves dogs. We never say 'free as a dog", do we? Just 'free as a bird'. Dogs and humans, not all what it seems. We take a wolf at heart and spend lots of time and energy teaching it to obey and react to commands.  (To be more historically accurate, the 'taking' happened a long time ago, and it succeeded, so very different from cats.) We are prepared to downsize our vocabulary to a few words in order to achieve that.  We literally put up with shit.  All in the name of training, while the true purpose looks more like having a totally obedient living being under our control, one emitting apparent devotion.  In humans it’s called the Stockholm syndrome.  Even the basic freedoms of sniffing and running are restricted anywhere near human habitat. It takes a trip back to the wild

Beauty within, beauty without

"Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite" is a wonderful book by Robert Kurzban and the site where you can read a bit about it has a great URL too: https://www.hypocrisybook.com. It is all about evolution and the mind that has different compartments, creating this apparently terrible habit of noticing inconsistencies in all but ourselves. As our mind is a kind of cabinet with many drawers and some of them are full of junk and others of exquisite art objects, things can look a bit incongruous. Our inner balance depends on ignoring the co-existence of junk and art and happily thinking of the whole cabinet as a solid piece of furniture.  This is of course a bit of a simplistic review of the book and the theory behind it, but it serves the purpose of my own theory: that physical beauty is our greatest source of hypocrisy. If there is a drawer that very few people dare to open, let alone examine its contents, that is the drawer of our looks. The real physical appearan

First Knight

Holding my breath on the edge of a language precipice, what a way to plunge into writing in anything else than my mother tongue. Mr Ambrose Bierce, would you like to have written "The foreigner's dictionary?"