?

Log in

Searching Minds Unite [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
searching minds unite

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Depression [Oct. 13th, 2004|12:11 am]
searching minds unite

wintor
Depression I'm sure is something that's plagued us all and is still something that we are unable to truly understand. Sure there are pills, therapy, and even "alternative" treatments to help it, but will these make it go away? I often wonder where depression stems from in each individual and how each person deals with it enough to find that it is gone or that they can control it better. With myself I suffered through depression from age 10 until I was 21. 11 years is a long time to be unhappy. Oh sure, I acted happy much of the time but some of my friends were there to see some of my mood changes. I acted happy because I HAD to. If I didn't, who would? I couldn't be unhappy because I was always happy. But I knew that I couldn't go on so for me it was just something I had to get over. No treatments, no drugs, no therapy. I just decided that I needed to get over it. I often wonder why it is that I was able to do this and yet others battle with it still and have for much longer than myself. But then again, sometimes I want to yell "What are you so depressed about? Why not just get over it? If you're depressed, change the things you're depressed about. Your life is what you make of it!" I realize though, that this is not the right thing to say because some people it goes so deep that they don't know what to do or don't want to. I believe that depression is within our own power to help control and overcome we just need to figure out what's causing it. Realize that our lives are not as bad as we think them to be. Life's to short to be unhappy. That's just my opinion however, I never talked to many people about my depression because I'm one to want to solve my own problems but want to help others with theirs. Every situation is different so yours may be something far more complex. Who knows?
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

The Fallacy of Need [Sep. 15th, 2004|04:25 pm]
searching minds unite

raugiel
[Current Mood |curiouscurious]
[Current Music |Eddie Izzard - Deffinite Article]

A Preface: This essay is not finished. I wrote it several months ago (admittedly, while intoxicated, but I edited it sober). It is not meant to be finished, but I would like imput on the ideas within. I expect that it will not be recived well by some. I welcome critizism, as I think a good debate is the best way to hammer the kinks out of an idea. So, here it is, have at.

Fallacy of Need

Introduction

There is but one barrier to successful human relationships – The Fallacy of Need. This great fallacy, combated by marriage and free love alike, is that which blocks us in all our relationships.
Parents, children, friends and lovers are equally effected by it.
The fallacy is not that humans need each other. It is clear that meaningful contact on emotional, intellectual and physical levels are a vital part of the existence of all primates. The fallacy is that we need particular others.
Self-consciousness is the result of this fallacy, the fear that we will not be acceptable to particular others. Social masking is another of its results. All moves to fit into a particular mould of being or behavior are the result of a desire for contact with particular others.
Ironically, it is this desire that enables all social structures to exist.
In all types of relationships, there is nothing to foul man’s intentions other than the fallacy of need.
Why, instead of seeking out others who wish his company as he wishes to be, does man stuff and cram himself into something that he hopes a potential partner will enjoy? It is only this fallacy.
Wherever it comes from, its usefulness is at an end. The havoc it has wrought is ever present before my eyes. Human society as it has been known throughout time would be impossible without it. Without the fallacy of need, social conformity and social fear, the greatest tools of world builders, would be wholly foreign to mankind. I can only imagine how much more beautiful this world would be if it were struck out of the human soul.

1. Mommy dearest?

You must say, that surely we need some particular others. Our parents perhaps – a concept less tenuous then, say, a soul-mate. Surely we need our parents. Perhaps you cannot imagine life without your parents’ love and support. Or perhaps you have felt, first hand, the effects on a person whose parents did not provide the relationship that was needed as a child. Or perhaps you simply cannot imagine life without your parents, for good or bad.
But this too is false. This needed affection and support can be found in another. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, friends, even strangers can raise a child whose emotional needs are fulfilled. It is only the fulfillment of these individual emotional needs which is important to the child – not the particular people.

2. Won’t you be my neighbor?

The need for particular types of relationships is also a product of the fallacy of need. The clearest manifestation of this effect is in the area of romantic relationships.
Although there are several views on what exactly a romantic relationship should be – one true love, soul-mate, companion, etc…- there is one thing in common, in all the predominate relationship forms, all of ones romantic-emotional needs are meant to come from one person. Imagine what a feat this is! It is a miracle that it ever works at all (if it works at all). One person who can fulfill ones romantic-sexual desire, ones intellectual needs, ones need for romantic-love and support.
What miracle does it take for two people so perfectly suited to each other to actually find each other? What further miracle for them to remain perfectly suited to each other throughout the rest of their lives? What miracle to keep them from growing and changing in an incompatible, or less compatible, way?
Surely we have seen this One Person method appear to work, but it seems very unlikely. Yet we are surprised that over two thirds of marriages end in divorce. We are surprised that it takes so many attempts to find someone we even think we might be able to marry. We are surprised that so many husbands and wives “cheat.” Some think that, if they had the right person, they would never do the same. They assume that all their needs would be fulfilled. In reality, in order to make this relationship form function, both parties will have to exist with some of their needs unmet.
The question is not, “where is the right person?” The question is, “why should such a person exist?” “How am I fulfilled by believing that such a person exists?” “How am I harmed?”
Does such a person exist? It seems highly unlikely. The closed door affairs of “happily married” couples testify to this.
How am I fulfilled by believing this? Perhaps it is a pleasant fantasy. Perhaps it keeps me going when things look hopeless. Perhaps it allows me to believe that everything is ok, and that the Johnsons next door are really very happy. Perhaps.
How am I harmed by believing this? Do I find that I can’t maintain romantic relationships with people who fulfill me in many ways because they don’t fulfill me in every way they “need” to? Do I find myself “cheating” on my relationship partner? Do I find that no one person I have found fits the ideal of this belief? Have I found that people who I thought could satisfy my every need have come disappointingly short of meeting that goal in the long run? Have I grown apart from a loved one who used to be “perfect” for me? Am I frustrated? Unhappy? Miserable? Self-depreciating because of the lack of love in my life? The harms can be numerous and devastating.

3. Who are you really cheating on?

What is cheating, and why is it so upsetting. The common understanding of the term “cheating” is to be romantically (usually physically) involved with someone when you are committed to being romantically involved with someone else. It is clearly understood to be cheating when you sleep with someone other than your wife, and clearly not cheating to have two different one night stands when you are single. You haven’t cheated on your first one night stand by sleeping with the second.
Monogamy is like a private contract between to people. Both parties agree to be with no one but each other romantically. This is a special sort of relationship, which should be approached with a great deal of care and caution. However, this type of romantic relationship has become the norm, even the default. When two people meet and begin to have romantic feelings for each other, they almost always enter into this type of relationship. It has become so common that it often simply understood with little or no discussion involved.
The vast majority of these relationships end. And, unsurprisingly, they often end badly when the two parties involved are unable to fulfill each other’s needs completely. Frequently, the parties involved don’t speak again, or are only able to maintain an acquaintance relationship – they are civil to each other, but they certainly don’t like each other anymore. It is rare that these relationships end in friendship, and even rarer that the two people experience any type or romance together again.
Clearly, any method of relationship that separates you from others is ineffective. However, the fallacy of need necessitates this separation by presupposing the main premise of the monogamous relationship – There is one person who can fulfill all my needs.

4. Counterculture – Here comes the old boss, same as the new boss.

The phenomenon of counter culture is the result of the restrictive nature of the fallacy of need. Within the fallacy of need, people vie for relationships with particular people whom they believe they need. In order to do this, they must be someone that the particular other would like to have a relationship (usually friendship) with. In the search for friends, people begin to conform to a behavior that they believe that others will like. This creates cultural norms. People are all behaving in a way they believe others would like, which eventually becomes institutionalized.
Some people, however, either cannot or will not conform to this mode of behavior. For whatever reason, it is repugnant to them. These people shun the fallacy of need, and choose seek out others like themselves rather than molding themselves to the desires of particular others. Eventually, a group of people come together who appreciate similar behavior in each other. When enough people come together, they create a counterculture.
A group can be said to have become a counterculture when it is large enough that people will seek them out as people they need. When the fallacy of need has come to apply to a group, they are a counter culture. People begin to mould themselves into someone they believe that these particular others would like.
Eventually, a group like this is always subsumed into the dominant paradigm. The dominant culture tames the new one, assimilating aspects of it that it finds acceptable, and moderating many others until the counterculture simply becomes one part of the dominant culture. When one says, “sure I can wear jeans and a t-shirt on the weekends, but not to work,” or, “I could wear this to the club, but not to a wedding,” we are seeing this principle at work. At one point in time, men wore suits everywhere, even when relaxing at home. Counter cultures have been subsumed into the dominant culture, but have not replaced it. Suits are still more respectable than a t-shirt and jeans. There are appropriate ways and appropriate places to present certain parts of the cultural paradigm. Expression made in the wrong way or in the wrong place would hurt ones chances to relate with particular other people, whether that relationship be as employer/employee, romantic partner, friend, etc.
The engulfing of countercultures simply creates a more complicated set of social rules.

5. Society as we know it

Beginning even from the most primitive human societies we know of, we can see the fallacy of need at work. Even in modern primate societies among various types of apes, we see it at work. Even in other animal societies, we see it at work.
Beginning with man, we can see that a tribal society contains elements created by the fallacy of need. Perhaps the particular other we need to please is the Chief of our tribe, or the Chief and his family. We will conform to modes of behavior that we believe will please these people. Because they are in charge of the whole tribe, the whole tribe behaves this way. We need certain things from our leaders in terms of guidance and approval, and so we seek it by conforming to whomever is leader. Only rarely, it seems, do we decide, when a leader does not fit us, to find a new leader!
Finding one leader who can fit a whole group of people is difficult, and at times, survival necessitates that large groups of people band together. This can make the fallacy of need seem truly necessary and maybe at times it is. The fallacy clearly has been useful enough to survival to be used for many thousands of years.
As we move through time, we can see that the fallacy was continuously used. We please our king, the lord of our manor, our boss, a person whom we admire, a group of people who appear to be very popular. The fallacy of need appears most valid when one particular person seems to hold the key to your survival or happiness. Often, in truth, he does not.

6. Primates and the other animals.

When we look back into animal society, however, we make a most interesting discovery. The most specialized behavior of most animals is its mating behavior. We note that males frequently follow a set pattern of behaviors when vying for the attentions of a female. In many species, this manifests as a ritual form of fighting. In many avian species, it takes the form of a ritual dance for the female. In others, a male must build a nest that he believes will please the female.
Clearly, the animal behaviors are not as conscious or premeditated as similar human behaviors (although human behaviors in this arena seem to become increasingly instinctual as time passes); however, they clearly operate on the same principle. Instead of behaving in any manner of possible ways and hoping that others of its species will want to interact with it, the animal conforms to a particular mode of behavior.
When an animal is taken away from other members of its species, it does not do this. A primate raised by humans behave differently towards humans, and towards members of it’s species than if would if it had been raise by its own kind in its natural habitat. Without a society to conform to, an animal will behave in the way that seems most appropriate according to its circumstances. It has no social rules to learn, so it will not learn them. This is one reason why it is so difficult to mate animals in zoos, especially those who are not kept with others of their own kind – they do not have a common rule of interaction. If the two animals would not normally get along, and they have no social behavioral norm to guide their interaction, then there is little chance that they will interact at all.
In the wild, these behaviors to gain that one particular other serve a very important purpose – survival. Creatures must mate and breed to continue their species. They must band together to hunt, or to avoid predators. The most fascinating thing about mating behaviors, however, is that very few species mate for life. This is at least equal among the “more advance species” such as primates and other mammals as it is in the “lower species” such as birds. Species with larger brains are not more able to mate for life with another animal; in fact, I would propose that they are less so.
Most animals need to mate with as many other members of their species as possible. That is what necessitates the fallacy of need for them more than anything else. They must be able to please a large number of mates. This being true for all the members of the species, they all conform to what they believe will be pleasing to the other animals, and they all gravitate towards one social norm of behavior. This propagates the species. This keeps them alive. This is why man came to use the very same method.

7. So what?

What use is this to us? To man? A species of animal that has populated the planet, which actively worries that it produces too many young, what need has he for this? A species that has little trouble surviving, that produces more benefits than it needs, what need has he for this?
Clearly there is no need. We have developed to the point where this program is no longer useful. It hurts our relationships with others. It makes us unhappy. It helps us to be tricked by others around us and by ourselves into making ourselves unhappy.
Instead, why not throw it away? As creatures who are self-aware, who can actively change, who can change their minds, be self-programmed from day to day to think and feel differently, why not throw it away and find something better?
What would be better? Recognizing that no one person should fulfill all your needs. By recognizing that it is not a crime or disservice to find pleasure in more than one person, and that there is nothing wrong with you if you do not fulfill all of another person’s needs. No one can.
Rejecting the one person method is a wonderful step that will improve many areas of human life, but it must go further. Social norms are only a creation of this fallacy. They are not important, absolute or vital. They too can be thrown away at will. The people who wish to follow them can. They will be “right” for some people. If they are not right for you, there will be other people who feel the same way. You can choose to interact with those people who feel similarly. You can choose to interact with those people who want to interact with you as you want to be. You don’t need to fear growing apart from a loved one. You can love another, and in recognizing that your loved one will not always fulfill the needs they do now, you will increase the chances that that relationship will remain in another form.
The multiple person method used in a romantic setting will most likely increase the success of romantic relationships. Many romantic relationships end because, while some of a person’s needs are fulfilled, not all of them are and they are restricted to only seeking those needs from one person. If it is understood that two people in a relationship can and will need to seek fulfillment from several different places, then a relationship need not end unless it has no value whatsoever. Few relationships are completely without value. Those relationships that lack romantic value can develop into friendships with little or no heartbreak involved.
The multiple person method can also be expanded into the multiple culture method. Many cultures can arise naturally from the process of finding groups of people that you like to interact with. However, there is no need to make one dominant culture, or interact with only one cultural group. Perhaps you like interacting with different people in different ways. Few people would feel fulfilled with only one set of behavior in their life. There is no reason to pick only one. There is no reason not to interact differently with every person you meet, if that pleases you. The multiple culture method is the recognition that your behavior is completely malleable, and that you can do anything at any moment. If it is fulfilling to you, then do it. There is no reason to concern yourself with the approval of others.
Taken to this extreme, culture itself breaks down. If we interact on a completely individual basis, without any surety of commonality, then human reality itself become malleable. The symbolic systems with which people in the same culture communicate become valueless. Clearly, even language itself could change to the point where it must be either truly meaningless, or undeniably clear.
At first, language would probably cease to have meaning. But this would not last for long. Soon, we would find that, out of a necessity to communicate, words would become clearly defined and rarely change. Slang would likely be highly personal, and perhaps only make sense when spoken by a group of two or three individuals.
This may seem like a barrier to communication, hut in fact it would be its grandest achievement. Words would be come less twistable. With definitions clear, lies would become more blatant and less transparent. Wiggling out of a lie would be more difficult, because semantic arguments would become useless. Communication would be finely tuned and infinitely more universal as we realized that we do not need anyone in particular.
Culture seems to be all that holds groups of man together, but in reality, it is what holds them apart, both as groups and as individuals. The separation from culture is the union of mankind.
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

ooobey [Sep. 7th, 2004|01:19 pm]
searching minds unite

feydmor
this community is getting a little dead, if not completely unconcious. What can we do to revive it???

suggestions?
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

Hello [Jul. 22nd, 2004|06:41 pm]
searching minds unite

icryingoutloudi
[Current Mood |discontentdiscontent]
[Current Music |Jet Grind Radio Theme]

I am new to this community and was not going to join one at all and basically use this blog so I could just write down things to 'get them out'...however! after reading a few of the posts in this community I've decided to join and to participate.

-One-
Link6 comments|Leave a comment

(no subject) [Jun. 7th, 2004|04:40 am]
searching minds unite

pink_goddess996
[Current Mood |calmcalm]

Well I just figured out how do my own posts on this journal so I thought I would introduce myself. I live in Illinois and am a restaurant manager. I have no religion but am a very spiritual person. I love to talk about well everything. I like to hear other peoples ideas they fascinate me. I believe that it is a very good way to expand horizons. I look foward to hear what all of you have to say, and hope that my insights may be of help to you. Please forgive me I'am a horrible speller.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Ignorance [May. 22nd, 2004|12:04 am]
searching minds unite

wintor
[Current Mood |contemplativecontemplative]

You would think that as a nation we have come a long way as far as tolerance is concerned, but this is not so. Although, we are educated against such issues as racism, sexism, etc. do we really heed the advice we are given? As individuals, we each carry our own predjudices, whether it be against the color of someone's skin, the certain way a person dresses, or even the sex of a person. Some of us just seem to hide it better than others. Does that make us any better than those who do not hide it? And if we are educated against think such thoughts where do we come up with the prejudgment that if you are one way then of course you are something else? Our parents, our friends, the media, or even our own experience? And is there any truths to certain prejudgments of certain groups?

  Today I was witness to two shocking incidences. The first being, I was sitting at an intersection when a truck with 3-5 young white males were sitting in their truck waiving their arms around outside the truck. Wondering what the commotion was I looked closer and noticed that the passenger had a noose hanging outside the window and was waiving that around as well. Yes a noose. Not only was he waiving this around but I noticed what had gotten the individuals attention, an African-American male across the street at a 7-11. When their light turned green the truck proceeded to turn into the 7-11 and stop by the gentleman. What happened next I could not say because traffic was moving in my way. I saw the truck pull away and I did not see the gentleman anymore in the parking lot. Did he go inside, did he get into his vehicle, or was it something worse? Shocked and scared I finished driving to my friend's house and called the police. Did I overreact? Did I do the right thing?

  The second incident happened with my friend later at her house. I was showing her an online test at "Quizilla" and one of the questions was "Which Care Bear do you dislike the most?" there were some random ones but the second to last choice was "Jew Bear". Laughing at all of the choices, she decided on this one. I was confused. I asked her why she chose that one, her reply was that they were "money grubbing bastards". What?!?!?!? She kind of laughed nervously and looked away. She asked me a minute later not to be mad at her. I wasn't mad, I was surprised, confused, even disappointed that one of MY friends had just said something that ignorant. I told her I was not mad but disappointed because I expected more from her. She told me she was feeling 'guilty' and I told her 'good'. How could someone so intelligent say something so ignorant and believe it? Does intelligence factor in to ignorance again predjudices? I would think so, the more educated you are about these issues the more you realize that there is not point to holding on to them because all they do is limit you. Am I being naive? Do I expect too much from people? Even my friends?

  Since moving to Texas, I've been witness to more incidences of predjudice than I ever cared to have happen. My first thought when moving here and hearing a certain 'N' word in a conversation was to blow it off and explain to myself, "You're in a new environment. That's the way they were brought up, you were just brought up differently." But is that an excuse for these incidences? Should the individuals environment be an issue? Or should we hold each individual responsible in the same way as the next?

Link3 comments|Leave a comment

What does father really mean? [May. 4th, 2004|08:40 pm]
searching minds unite

capilet
[Current Mood |pensivepensive]
[Current Music |Pink Floyd - The Wall]

Father. Vater. Padre.
They all translate the same, but what does it really mean?
In my experience it can mean anything from a parent who is there for you, (Dad, or Daddy for the younger set), to the extreme of a "sperm-donor" in either the literal or figurative sense. (No offense meant to the guys out there).
My half-sister calls our father our sperm donor. At this point I would have to agree.
Here's the story (I'm sorry to those who know it): my father was involved in my life up until my parents divorce, at which time I was ten. I loved him and to be perfectly honest he was my hero. After my parents divorce my father moved away and slowly began to equate me with my mother and to push me out of the picture. He didn't stop my sister's boyfriend from beating the crap out of me multiple times between 13 and 14 (in my father's house). He didn't show up to my graduation, which was really important to me. It hurt, BAD. I severed the connection to save myself the pain.
Now, my father wants back into my life. I am 22 years old, and I have only managed to establish a normal, healthy relationship with a guy within the last year and a half. There is still a part of me that loves my father, and there is a part of me that vehemently hates him.
My father is getting older, and with time more tired. The part of me that loves him doesn't want him to die not knowing that, but the other part feels it would serve him right.
My father is also difficult to get through to.

Any ideas, suggestions, similar stories?
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

From My Own Journal. . . . [Apr. 22nd, 2004|06:07 am]
searching minds unite

tranceptor
God Fearing?

Read more...Collapse )
Link3 comments|Leave a comment

In The Beginning Of The Beginning... [Apr. 19th, 2004|07:37 pm]
searching minds unite
secretdoctrine
Dear Friends, Seekers, Sons of God, Sons of Man, Masters and Disciples, this day you shall be with me in paradise!
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly. [Apr. 16th, 2004|08:20 pm]
searching minds unite
evenyou
To introduce my background, I was an atheist since around 2nd grade even though I was raised catholic, and I never had any belief until early high school I became an agnostic.

This year all of that changed when during my first real manic episode, I really felt God throughout my body and I had the ability to see him everywhere.

Read more...Collapse )
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]