"Change"... Inevitable; relentless; a fundamental part of probably the most accurate oxymoron of all time, which is the fact that "change is the only constant". It is the way of the world, the way of life itself. We see it all around, experience it on a daily basis, yet are unable to come to terms with it when even after so many opportunities to. It is (arguably) the single most debilitating yet unavoidable phenomenon we will ever encounter.
I have one particular thought that seems to be contradictory to the general opinion, though; that people never truly change. Of course, "change" can mean many things, and (obviously!) as biological beings we "change" (dare I say "decay?") over time, so I am not arguing with what is clearly a fact. What I do, however, disagree with is the idea that people change "inherently"; which is to say I do not believe that a person can become someone that they were/are not. As easy as that would be to believe, especially given the many instances in life that would be so much easier to understand if we WERE to so believe, I do not subscribe to this theory. This is mainly due my nature, which does give an interesting and somewhat useful insight into human nature. Therefore, these are my thought on this topic with regards possibly the most integral part of that nature, which would be relationships; I have given special prominence to "the relationship", which is that which we look to form with our "life partner", if things were to be ideal...
Time and time again I have seen "change" becoming a mis-diagnosis for development or increased maturity (or the lack thereof). When someone says "He/she has changed", what they actually mean is that they did not understand the person at the time they thought they did, as being the person they now understand that person to be; The person in question has not "changed", where the person was of a certain nature when you met them but has become a completely different person with the passing of time; but rather it is you who has not understood that person for who he/she IS, initially. This is a combination of various problems....
Firstly, people tend to prematurely assume they "know" another person; they assume that a few months, or years, is enough to know the PERSON. (This is has become quite obvious to me, given that many people think they know me though they are unlikely to EVER know me; this being so, however much I wish it were otherwise!) So I think the first problem is this assumption. This is what leads to many people believing someone has "changed", because they assume they knew the person in the first place! The actual situation is that they simply did not understand the person for who they were, and with time they have gained that knowledge which contradicts their initial perception. So my advice first up would be to understand how long, and how much effort it takes to truly understand who a person is inherently.
On a personal note, might I add that one of the FIRST questions we must answer in our lives is "Who am I??". Experience has taught me that, the fact that people give so little thought to this question, leads to their perception of themselves misleading others (like myself), by crippling our intuition with blatant statements that were ill thought out. As a person, before embarking on an important relationship, one must know oneself; only then will there be a possibility of connecting with another, as that will allow the other person to see if their instinctive analysis tallies with your interpretation of yourself. Because people like myself who are aware of who we are, have the potential to understand you completely, but chances are we will expect you to know yourself; so much so that we will take your word of who you are over our own instinctive analysis of you, because we couldn't POSSIBLY know you better than you know yourself, right?? So, before you tell someone (who may be like me!!) something that they are likely to believe, in spite of their better judgement, make sure you know yourself enough to make such a blatant statement.
The second problem is that people misjudge a stage of development of a person as that which defines them. It is astounding how inaccurate age is in judging a person's maturity, as it is completely possible for the general "norm" to be completely wrong. So what one must understand is that the most salient question is whether, whatever happens, you are willing to make that person a priority in your life based on your knowledge of the person inherently. Notice I say "knowledge", as opposed to "assumption" or who you "think" a person is. When you know, you know; there is no other way to explain it. There will be no doubt in your mind, that you completely understand who another person is.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, people need to wrap their heads around the concept of "Love". Many people believe that the love one feels towards one's partner, is different to that which one feels towards the people with whom one forms "platonic" relationships, such as those with family and possibly one or two close friends; I completely disagree. While I concede that sometimes the emotions are so completely wrapped together that it is difficult to decipher one from the other, "Love" should not be confused with "romantic attraction" (which I feel is the best way to explain it). If you fall "in love" with a person, that means that the romantic attraction you feel towards that person has led to you loving that person, which is to say that you have completely and irrevocably set aside your "self" to care for that person. Its EXACTLY the same emotion that you would feel towards your family, and those few friends that you let yourself get so close to, only with the addition of romantic attraction to the mix. So the only difference, is that circumstance does not dictate a "limit" to how attached you can become to that person. It does not mean that it is a different kind of love that you feel, merely that it accompanies a non-platonic attraction which is not present in a platonic relationship.
Let me add yet another personal experience here; "romantic attraction" is not as important as it is thought to be. Its sad that people refer to it as "love", because it has so little to do with a successful relationship; because "love" is the key; the fundamental ingredient. The non-platonic feelings may come and go, and (through personal experience I know that) it is more choice than uncontrollable; and it is not an essential ingredient to love another person. If you've lived your life believing that you need to be romantically attracted to another person in order to be able to love that person, you'd be wrong. The thing is, anything short of true love will fade and die with time, sometimes due to no particular fault of any one person; it may be rekindled, or not, as circumstance and subconscious necessity dictate. True love, however, will never die a natural death; because only futility or permanent separation can destroy it, which means it can only be "killed" by circumstance or conscious action on the part of the subject of it. So the concept of "falling out of love" is possibly the most common misconception to have become a cliche. So there you have it, further evidence that "change" is not part of human nature, rather a characteristic of circumstance surrounding one's life at a particular time.
So, as I said at the beginning of the post, I do not believe that people "change"; neither do I believe that one can "fall out of love". Human nature is understandable, if only we pay close enough attention to it; and it does not accommodate true, inherent "change"..
No comments:
Post a Comment