|
newer-older-profile-gbook-notes- e-mail-dland if this, then that. 05.15.02 at 2:00 pm 0 comments so far if erica is my compliment and nadia is what a quiz called my "twin soul" then maybe whomever i am "destined" to be with must be both my compliment as well as my twin soul, and therefore what is known as soul mate. in stats, the rule of compliments. maybe it's in love and life, too. but is this destiny or the molding of our future? do we mold ourselves and others to fit our history and intended future? in other words, would i mold my "mate" into my definitions of soul mate? or, perhaps more important/pivotla, do i mold myself into that role/mentality? perhaps the "success" of molding is the achievement of happiness or more accurately, contentment. we often settle. do we settle on others, or do we settle on ourselves? look at molding as a process; a process of personality and relationship formation. is, then, settling simply the process that has never been fully realized in either ourselves or others? is it futile to discuss ourselves in relation to others if we are unable to define and understand ourselves as autonomous beings? or, must all "groups" [see the individual as a grouping of attributes in this statement] be analyzed and understood in relation to one another [SEE: marx]? if everything, in its essence, is just a social construction, then, yes, we must view ourselves in relation/as dependent on others. we are inherently social beings. therefore, we are not, cannot be autonomous. even when we are grouped in opposition to one another, that opposition is a relationship in which we exist. with that, it is impossible to see ourselves as autonomous beings. even the language we use to describe ourselves as potentially autonous from others is a social construct, thereby placing us in a relationship with the greater whole. even the concept of autonomous is relational. what are we autonomous from? this autonomy can be paralleled with the opposition mentioned earlier. in the end, we are not autonomous beings. we would be grossly inaccurate to claim that we are able to live in isolation from one another. "from one another" is just another form of relationship. the politics of grouping; "we are this because we are not that," or vice versa. that is the essence of this argument. we are forever gauged in relation to one another. nothing that we are or produce is apable of being autonomous/seperate. so, what does this mean for me? after all, why else do we, as humans, think? simplistically, i should give up on attempting to define myself through myself [via actions, thoughts, etc.] instead, who i am is a varied collection of all my interactions with others. i am nothing without the relationships that i maintain or choose to abandon. |