A connection of choice

The psychological break-up of humans is too complex even for a variety of labels being attributed to a single individual. Our beings are composed of not only our circumstances but also the choices that we have made through these circumstances. When judging another, a simple background survey is drastically inadequate. By judging, I do not imply any moral connotation of good or bad, right or wrong. It is an amoral analysis of another personality in relation to your own. It is the groundwork to understanding a relationship.

So labeling is inadequate when dealing with people... especially those who have grown beyond conformism. Each human being is a unique entity. I make this statement even for the mobs. Every single person in a flock who draws his or her sense of security and belonging from that group has been subject to subtly or substantially different circumstances compared to the others and made some unique choices along the way as well. What defines him or her is not only the actions but also the reasons behind those actions.

So, am I suggesting that every human being deserves equal consideration owing to the uniqueness inherent in them? No.

I believe in connections, relationships that bloom from commonalities in fundamental feelings, beliefs, personality traits and actions. Though trying to give form to any "criteria" is not as esoteric as one would think, going by these beliefs (only) would be too dogmatic and superficial an approach to discovering the depths inherent in human behavior.

Self-love in the prime determinant of a holistic interactive process. If one is indulging in a relationship for reasons such as altruism, insecurity, domination or subversion, it will inevitably lead to a dependency syndrome where the people involved are drawing upon the strengths (or weaknesses) of each other.

Before relating to another human being, it is important to understand yourself and love who you are. It is critical to be honest with yourself about your intentions and feelings (whatever they may be).

One might think that this closes doors to that seemingly abstract concept of love. How can one be an egocentric and love another person at the same time. This will be crystal clear, if you understand the reason for loving another. We love another not for their weaknesses but their virtues, never with sympathy only with respect and understanding. Love is amongst equals in spirit. Anything else is a compromise.

Comfort in one's nakedness is another factor that determines the efficacy of a connection. When there need to be no facades and no inhibitions to a free flow of interaction, we have a true bond. "You" and "I" will never become "Us" if we aren't acquainted and comfortable with the nakedness of our beings, every virtue and every flaw.

This is when silences become blissful and not a burden. This is when a smile means more than a word. This is when a glance is enough to express an emotion.

Man is a social animal they say... Man is a dew drop I say, that requires a leaf to condense upon. Connections are not a compulsion. The dew drop always existed as vapors but could only take shape on the leaf. There are some things we learn about ourselves only in the presence of another who understands.

Dysfunctional relationships

The course of our lives are governed through the choices we make. When a relationship erodes from our being we are confronted with some choices. We must choose to either attempt improving it or sever the ties.

This fundamental works in every relationship from one of conjugal love to friendship. What when one is dealing with dysfunctional blood relations. The choices are still the same, however tougher to implement.

We are often confronted with sour relations which we, nevertheless, want to keep because we feel mutual love still exists. I've often wondered about the love inherent in a blood relation. Most often what matters here is inevitably the relation itself and not the person involved and that is the root of the problem.

A mother, for instance, will love her daughter named Divya. What matters here is the daughter and not the person, Divya. The same holds true vice versa. Both the people are substitutable in this relationship.

It doesn't really matter WHO the daughter or mother is as long as the title of 'daughter' and 'mother' are held by two individuals.

One effective method, in my opinion, to mend a dysfunctional relationship is recognising the person behind the title. Thinking in terms of WHO is involved. This way, there is more mutual respect in the relationship. This is an essential prerequisite to a bond. I'm saying this assuming that both parties feel that the relationship is dysfunctional and want to improve it!