Some Cynicism for Your Weekend

So I was just thinking about something recently, and I honestly haven't settled on an answer. I just thought it would be interesting to hash it out on the forum.

Pretty much, consider the following premises:
Compassion and empathy are really just the "good" side of poor psychological boundaries. This is no mere assertion that "caring means you may get hurt." What if it's genuinely impossible to really connect with people and not be at the mercy of terminally destructive, social toxicity? If the average person feels differently, it's just because the average person's relationships don't fall on the really crappy end of the bell-curve.

What do you think?

muaddib wrote:So I was just thinking about something recently, and I honestly haven't settled on an answer. I just thought it would be interesting to hash it out on the forum.

Pretty much, consider the following premises:
Compassion and empathy are really just the "good" side of poor psychological boundaries. This is no mere assertion that "caring means you may get hurt." What if it's genuinely impossible to really connect with people and not be at the mercy of terminally destructive, social toxicity? If the average person feels differently, it's just because the average person's relationships don't fall on the really crappy end of the bell-curve.

What do you think?

It can be genuinely impossible to really connect with people. I can't argue that one. Most people can (at least) somewhat connect to others. Once they (somewhat) connect with others, well....they may get hurt over caring about their fellow humanity.

If you would have said "not being able to connect with others in any way"....well...I haven't seen that one play out in the external World yet.

I pretty much live in Cynicalville (by the way). So...a little cynicism is always welcome....a grain of salt added is always on the menu as well lol.........

My wall of optimism is impenetrable, at this moment.

Define "really connect".

I think that's where the problem is.

muaddib wrote:If the average person feels differently, it's just because the average person's relationships don't fall on the really crappy end of the bell-curve.

Most average people I know are in social relationships that I would consider beyond intolerable, and they seem more-or-less okay with it.

emillionth wrote:Define "really connect".

I think that's where the problem is.

I really didn't think I'd need to define it since it's a feeling. When you have it, you know it.

If you want an operational definition though, how about the comfort that you're part of something bigger than yourself? It's not that you can't have negative feelings for other reasons, but the people and world outside you are a source of emotional vitality.

Now, what is interesting is that if you were to require "losing yourself" in your relationships, then it would be tautological. You wouldn't connect until you knocked all your walls down, and the Mongols could pillage you the next day.

anathegram wrote:

muaddib wrote:If the average person feels differently, it's just because the average person's relationships don't fall on the really crappy end of the bell-curve.

Most average people I know are in social relationships that I would consider beyond intolerable, and they seem more-or-less okay with it.

That's a good point, but would you say their relationships are this way by default, or just a few that stand out? Also, how stable are the toxic ones; do they tend to be long-term without any other forms of compensating?

It's a good point, but I need more data... I crave more data!

muaddib wrote:When you have it, you know it.

If you want an operational definition though, how about the comfort that you're part of something bigger than yourself? It's not that you can't have negative feelings for other reasons, but the people and world outside you are a source of emotional vitality.

You can get that from certain drugs. And when you do, it says something about your brain, but nothing about your relationships.

That's an extreme case, of course, but still: subjective things are subjective.

Now, what is interesting is that if you were to require "losing yourself" in your relationships, then it would be tautological. You wouldn't connect until you knocked all your walls down, and the Mongols could pillage you the next day.

I think that "losing yourself" is actually an inherent part of it, and most people are just fine with it, because they don't perceive it as a threat.

muaddib wrote:Pretty much, consider the following premises:

Compassion and empathy are really just the "good" side of poor psychological boundaries. This is no mere assertion that "caring means you may get hurt." What if it's genuinely impossible to really connect with people and not be at the mercy of terminally destructive, social toxicity? If the average person feels differently, it's just because the average person's relationships don't fall on the really crappy end of the bell-curve.

What do you think?

I can speak for myself.

For me, how to say - boundaries can be thick . In the sense that there is some space in it. It doesn't mean that they are impervious.

There is me, the others, and in the middle, some space.

I had difficulties (still have) with boundaries, in the sense that there lacked (or sometimes lacks) space between me and others.
So everytime a boundary is crossed it hurts (hurted) me.

On the other side, impervious boundaries are painful because one is lonely inside.

For me (i speak for myself) good boundaries are thick and porous. This space is where one can communicate with others.

In that space, "you and me" can walk, nutrish you, nutrish me, without danger of hurting me (or you)

I had (sometimes have) to learn to protect myself through making that space thicker.


It looks very theoretical, it isn't. It's very practical.


Some people have thin boundaries. They are easily hurt. And probably they hurt in return. Because one can't walk in that space.
They are often creative or sincere. Because me is not far from you.
They have to protect themselves.

Some thoughts, occuring in my mind...

muaddib wrote:I think that "losing yourself" is actually an inherent part of it, and most people are just fine with it, because they don't perceive it as a threat.

Maybe most people who get so close to others don't have enough of a self to sacrifice. Not self in the Freudian sense, but a sense of their individuality, even a pride in what makes them singular and unique. It seems most people I pass on the street live in a cookie-cutter reality where all their interests and passions are co-opted from their (popular) culture.

Losing myself in somebody else is a frightening thought because I see it as a loss of control. A dilution of myself. And who is this other person, really? How can you feel you can really know the depths of another person enough to totally give yourself over to them? It seems like too much of a gamble. Like I'll be psychically robbed somehow.

emillionth wrote:would you say their relationships are this way by default, or just a few that stand out? Also, how stable are the toxic ones; do they tend to be long-term without any other forms of compensating?

Many people would rather be in a toxic relationship than alone. And they know it. So they stay. How on earth would I possibly know this? Many many Law & Order episodes.

muaddib wrote:I need more data... I crave more data!

Philonoe wrote:
For me, how to say - boundaries can be thick . In the sense that there is some space in it. It doesn't mean that they are impervious.

There is me, the others, and in the middle, some space.

I had difficulties (still have) with boundaries, in the sense that there lacked (or sometimes lacks) space between me and others.
So everytime a boundary is crossed it hurts (hurted) me.

I have difficulties with boundaries because I'm never sure how to define or maintain all the different walls I've erected between all the different people in my life.

So maybe that space you mention is what contains the element of dysfunction we all have here?

So maybe that space you mention is what contains the element of dysfunction we all have here?

I don't know?

What seems to me is that sometimes people imagine that it would be better if the "you and me" was more porous. But i think what's important is to have it more thick, more protective.
Then others can approach you.
One needs to have own space very protected. All people, i think (i didn't read much but read Winnicott who says that the self must be protected at all cost)

I imagine that in most people, the basic "me and you" is build during childhood.

People who have it are more quiet.

Some parents are threatened by that boundary. They don't help building it but destruct it; they see it as a threat. Then one can't build it. One disappears. One wastes lot of energy to protect oneself.

If you are interested i can try to find very practical examples in daily life. The "me and you" can be made of physical space, of time, of little lies, of small talk, rituals, ...

naps wrote:I have difficulties with boundaries because I'm never sure how to define or maintain all the different walls I've erected between all the different people in my life.

I tend to compartimentalize a lot too.

It's a way to protect myself. If i let someone approach me, it's like a little hole in my protective layer. I don't want other people enter.