Skip to main content

Top Post

It is never personal, you're not the protagonist

It's so easy to become offended. It actually comes pretty natural. Someone says something.  You feel it's directed at you Strong reaction follows No need to react, it's got nothing to do with you as a person Imagine some remarks about academic work versus manual one, a bit dismissive about the latter. You don't have a degree and never wanted one. You know very well it takes years of experience and training to do what you're doing. Talent is involved too, as some people do have "two left hands".  You still feel you should add something to the conversation, but not sure if it is going to be well-received. No need to enlighten the other party right now Most people think in terms of opposites. If it's not this, it's that and it can't be anything else. Certainty of one's convictions is also a form of self-reassurance that everything is stable in one's world. Other points of view cannot be allowed because they are disruptive. Cognitive disrup

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

Montaigne's kidney stones

Philosophy underpinned by a kidney ailment?  Michel de Montaigne was quite a prolific essayist despite his kidney stones or was his painful condition the catalyst of his writings? When does being unwell stop being an impediment? Too many questions, admittedly, a sign of weakness in prose and poor rhetoric anywhere else. Seriously now, or "srsly" as some write nowadays, questions can be quite an effective way to jump start a monologue, and it rhymes with blog as well. Etymologists, beware, I know the two word' ending may sound similar, but they have different origins. A chat with a philosophically-inclined friend included at some point a reference to Montaigne and how debilitating a toothache can be. First the pain and then its crushing ability to obliterate any high-level thinking. Suppose that quite a few of us, bringing a vague cultural or literary reference to the table, feel a bit guilty afterwards and double-check they were not misquoting or worse, inventing. I have

It is never personal, you're not the protagonist

It's so easy to become offended. It actually comes pretty natural. Someone says something.  You feel it's directed at you Strong reaction follows No need to react, it's got nothing to do with you as a person Imagine some remarks about academic work versus manual one, a bit dismissive about the latter. You don't have a degree and never wanted one. You know very well it takes years of experience and training to do what you're doing. Talent is involved too, as some people do have "two left hands".  You still feel you should add something to the conversation, but not sure if it is going to be well-received. No need to enlighten the other party right now Most people think in terms of opposites. If it's not this, it's that and it can't be anything else. Certainty of one's convictions is also a form of self-reassurance that everything is stable in one's world. Other points of view cannot be allowed because they are disruptive. Cognitive disrup

Artificially emotional intelligence

       A blog post by Shelly Palmer,  I've Talked to the Future and it Talked back , set me thinking a couple of years ago, so I wrote a blog post. I am re-publishing it because nothing seems to have changed since.  His questions were not purely rhetorical. Indeed, how are we going to distinguish between human and machine? Will a new code of conduct be invented and become part of product instructions,  same as the ‘do not immerse in water’ one? Imagine how many future legal departments could be scratching their collective heads over a certain feature that may open the door to litigation. The anthropological aspect is a bit trickier, I agree, but has it ever been otherwise?  Children turn out well-behaved or not as a result of at least two factors: genetics and environment. From a certain age onward, peer pressure displaces parental influence. Add to this chance (yes, goddess Fortuna, that one) and the concoction is almost ready. I am not worried ab