The problem with opposites.

Going further into the concept of opposites, and how we naturally tend to do the opposite of what causes us pain, there arises another problem on top of the issue of only doing the opposite mentally instead of physically. This problem is that mentally is only one version of opposites compared to a physical opposite where we convince ourselves to feel different about the same situations. These other versions of opposites exist epiphenominal to one another and in relation to each other. When we think of doing the opposite of what is not working there are several versions of opposites that exist at once, because many particular avenues exist opposite of many particular sequences interconnected. To choose one may be the key to a solution, to choose all may be a solution too, or too choose all could be a mistake because choosing just one may be the only proper solution, or doing all could be a contradiction in itself, which is the next point I’ll make.

We want our goal to be physically the opposite of what does not work, because what is physical is tied to what is mental. The mind does not end at the skull. The mind ends at the limit of our perceived environment. We are interactive with the world around us, and this in turn causes plasticity in the brain to adapt to the perceived environment for better survival. Those who only change their mental outlook to a physical situation will find they have fooled themselves into a situation out of their favor. Just changing physically alone can work in that it will bring results, but to attach deeper thoughts to why it is working may allow us to come up with better physical routes than just reflexes. In some cases people will subconsciously just have good reflexes to certain situations and perform the right physical actions without knowing why they made the choices they did. This would likely be because good genes when it comes to these situations. Genes can be passed on both a priori (sexual reproduction) and priori by the environments of people we learn from and interact with to better survive.

When it comes to opposites there are several interrelated activities all taking place at any given time. When we think of how to be the opposite of what we perceive of fat, which is skinny, we have to do the opposite of what we are doing to get there. However, we are doing several things at once that make us fat, and should we change one, many, or all the things we think are the cause? Eating too much may be one reason we are fat, but not exercising could be another reason. Which one should we do the opposite of, or should we do the opposite of both? In this simple example it would make sense to do the opposite of both, but from my own experience the emphasis would be on food intake first.

A more complex example of opposites can be approached in the abusive relationship example from my last writing. When dealing with people the opposites are more frequent, complex, and interrelated to things in the mind and environment than we can comprehend. In the last example a husband is abusing his spouse. The opposite action on one hand is for the spouse to leave her husband. However, this abuse could be physical or mental. To physically walk away from physical abuse may make the most sense if we are physically weaker, but emotions for the abuser can still exist, and this may not be so easy, which is why in many cases the spouse does the opposite mentally and tries seeing the situation differently. If the abuse is verbal the spouse may also walk away, but another opposite action to being abused verbally and running may be fighting verbally, which is the opposite of running, but also the opposite of being stagnant during abuse. You certainly cannot fight as the opposite action, and run as the opposite action to stagnation at the same time when those opposite actions are also opposite of each other. If a tiger is going to eat us the opposite of getting eaten is to not get eaten, and we can do this by fighting or running, which happen to be the opposite of each other too, and cannot be performed at the same time. So, doing the opposite is not always possible when there are several avenues of opposite. We can only choose the opposite of the primary thought at hand we fear, and that is to fight or flee, but the actions taken can all be opposites of each other, and therefore we can only use our reflexes to act on any particular situation.

What we end up having is a case of several particulars taking place at once. Since we cannot concentrate or be aware of all these particulars at once, we choose to focuses primarily on the dominant one, which is the one most obvious or made most obvious. This is why when we think of doing the opposite we tend to only do the opposite of the problem that immediately comes to mind, or the prominent problem, which is the most emotionally embedded problem based on past environments we have interacted with. Since we are always emotionally in a moment we must fight our fear in that moment. Fighting a fear in the last scenario can be either be done by fighting or running, because both are still the opposite living with a fear like being eaten, but we still have to choose one or the other even though both are the opposite of each other. One may be a better solution than the other, but we only live in this particular situation with this particular problem at a particular time. We may never know which solution has a higher probability of working better. All we do know is that fear, disappointment, and pain is not good. We may come upon a similar situation in the future and do the other opposite than we had in the past and get similar or different results, because we are now acting with a different person who also has their own particular past, and may act completely different to the same action we did to the last person. We never really know which action is best when dealing with people except that built by our prejudice. The only thing that may unify some actions under an umbrella is that the actions are taking place in the same culture, or very similar cultures where the overlap can carry over. The most we can really do is worry about how we feel and how to best address our pain, and not worry about whether others might be hurt by our actions if they are hurting us. In the end our own feelings will always matter most, and if we show weakness by showing pity to others who keep acting out of our favor, they will take advantage of being able to abuse us for their own pleasure. The lesson from all this is to not think too hard about how to attack the aggressor (fear), but to just attack it with what we best know how to, and learn from the interaction itself.

Fear can also exist in comfort or complacency. When we exist in a group of people that cater to the same ideology we do, we find comfort in many cases. Sometimes the individuals will challenge us frequently and keep us on our toes, but in other cases the comfort may keep us from questioning the world outside. This fear is created by what exists outside of comfort. Outside of the group we are in is a world we are not comfortable with, and may challenge us in a ways that make it so we do not want to consciously struggle over the complexities of it. It is not so much that there is anything wrong with comforts to retreat to and recover in, but just as much as the group is created under a roof for comfort and happiness, it is also created for security due to fear of the unknown outside. This paradox may always exist, but some groups are primarily created from fear (a gang) while others are primarily comfort (a biological family). Groups primarily created by fear will naturally do the opposite of pain or discomfort in the outside world, and seek comfort together, but because the primary drive is fear of what is different the group is actually running together instead of fighting together from the outside world. In many cases these groups come across as very aggressive in order to frighten off what they really fear, and that is a world they feel does not accept them. Doing the opposite in this case is not in our interest, but it is also hard to notice when we are in the group and everyone is acting with us and us with them. A group primarily built on comfort will have most individuals existing away from the group with other groups at times to bring in new information or ideas to challenge the existing order of the group for the purpose of strengthening them. This creates new conscious struggles we can seek to improve ourselves with. In the modern world people do not like complexity and prefer technology takes care of it for us, and it is easier to shrug of deep thoughts, but these deep thoughts we can integrate into how we live everyday will make us less fearful and more skilled. We want skills because skills are like legs. If a bipedal represented two main skills we put all our time into and we lost a leg we would no longer be able to walk. We want several legs, and each of those legs can attach themselves to several kinds of people. If we lose a leg we still have many legs, but we can only grow these legs when we overcome our fears in a department and create new comforts primarily in those departments. Those legs grow out of the home we primarily find comfort in.