I have noticed in myself that whenever a distressing feeling arises in mind, there is often an accompanying thought that is drastic or even 'polarized'. I take it to mean that anytime I suffer an extreme emotion, I can usually find some kind of absolute notion about what 'should be' true behind that distressing event. An example might be thinking that someone else might prevent a person from fulfilling her or his potential. According to this view, people contend with one another to get the very 'best' positions, often believing that there is only one possible position out there. This is a little like saying that there is only one book worth reading in a library, and that is the Nobel Prize winner. While society, it would seem, inevitably ranks people according to their popularity or respect in a certain area, none of that means that only one or two people can be valued in a given field of expertise. Either you are 'a genius' or 'not worth reading or knowing', under this polarized vision of life.But the same is true of everything. The fact that there are brilliant people in certain fields does not mean that all people were meant to emulate their brilliancy. More so, one can say that each individual has her or his own brilliancy, the spark within them that makes them unique and indispensable to the world. But because I fixate on the idea that only some few elite people can be leaders in some area, I forget the uniqueness that is particular to each being. This elitist view is not compassionate, and it gives rise to feelings of anxiety and perfectionism.
Another example I can think of regarding 'polarized' thinking is what happens when one finds out that someone does not like them. It could even be a group of people in a room that unanimously decides not to like the person. It is often the case that a person can take this insight and then conclude, "I am not a likable person." Again, this thinking is a kind of 'good/bad', 'black/white' thinking which gives rise to all kinds of anxieties, such as the fear of being alone, being rejected, or not belonging anywhere. But the perception that people in a room don't approve of me does not mean that the whole world disapproves of me. Nor does it mean that I 'deserve' disapproval. But somehow, the fear of not being good enough for others can be so powerful that is becomes a person's reality. When a person is dominated by such a view, it's hard for them to see good qualities in themselves, much less tap into those qualities. But it takes an act of personal befriending (and perhaps courage) to see that one's worth doesn't depend on anyone's opinion.
I found that in times of emotional stress, it helps me to question the thinking behind the emotional state I am having, and to almost engage in a Socratic dialogue with the underlying assumptions of an emotion. Doing so tends to soften the emotions a bit, as though the mind discovered how starkly polarized their thinking is that gives rise to the strong emotion. I must add the qualification that it's best to do this when one's mind is quiet or in a more reflective mode, such as after a period of meditation or outdoor walking. A more radical way of doing this, I would say, is to take the approach that polarities are an integral part of cosmic existence, and often dance together in rhythmic cycles. This vision is perhaps inspired by Taoism. Under this view, one need not try to get rid of polarity or 'dissolve' it into non-polarity. Rather, one can step back from the polarized view and appreciate the interplay of opposites, and why those opposites need to co-exist together.
An example of this interplay would be to look at a situation where one feels regret about leaving something to the last minute, or not completing something on time. On the one hand, one can lament the fact that they 'should have' made the deadline, and 'should have' stopped procrastinating while the time was still available. But it also helps to understand the situation from another perspective. What if what actually happens has its own internal logic, its own dialectic, that needs to unfold in its own time? I might resolve never to be late for a deadline, but that resolve contends with many other pressures and factors that might delay a person's progress in a task. Examples of these factors might include competing priorities, divided loyalties to other projects, lack of sleep, a major life change, etc. The point is, why should one have to tie themselves to one principle, when life often reveals many principles at work in shaping a situation? This doesn't mean that it is not important to be on time for things. It means that any principle must contend with conflicting principles, and they form a dynamic interplay that cannot be clearly delineated into parts. In order for 'non-procrastination' to exist there needs to be a tendency to procrastinate. Otherwise, no such term as 'procrastination' would exist. Given that the two terms exist,it's useful to understand how they connect in different situations. Why might 'procrastination' be helpful and needed in a situation?
Looking at things as a dance of opposites might lessen the need to 'dissolve' opposites. It also allows the complexity and contradictions of inner life to be more accepted and even to co-exist. In order to assert one quality as 'true', certain other qualities need to be suppressed or seen as 'untrue'. But it would be more interesting to look at the 'truth' from both sides, and to give each side the full due it warrants, before making a decision on which way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment