I feel very annoyed because I feel like a nuisance to everyone I'm with. For everyone, I'm a burden, an essential element that requires going beyond their limits to make a deal. Indeed, I strive to be a good citizen and operate with the full support of the law, but for many, this is an extreme, as they base their lives on the actions of their families, where the law wasn't the foundation but rather an accessory. In this sense, it seems I'm obligated to stop being an ordinary citizen, making the law merely a way to conceal my interests, which often extend far beyond its scope.

At work, the situation is alarming. The law is treated as something to be avoided; people operate in secret, as if it were a kind of father figure acting without any feelings. Groups, for their part, act as a kind of mother figure, justifying even the most despicable acts. This is what daily life has become in the culture I'm immersed in. Personally, I may have proof of everything I do in my defense, but it seems to be more of a ticking time bomb, where others look for any excuse to exploit my slip-up and escalate it. I don't feel comfortable in this culture where the law isn't used as a basis for socialization, nor in how these interactions are rooted in the events that shape our individual selves and define the course of our lives. I feel hurt because saying these words makes me fearful, because it implies that I might observe things at work that I could use to my advantage. In other words, I'm in a job that lacks transparency.

Even in the office, people still talk about doing things that aren't something to be seen publicly, thus making the office an extension of the public sphere. Every office, by its very nature, is an extension of the public sphere, where people's limitations are solely defined by what they do within its walls, simply because it's a closed space and therefore what's happening inside isn't visible from the outside, making it necessary to keep a record. Everything that happens in an office is worthy of public knowledge, because every office, whether private or public, must provide evidence of what occurs there. In a community that has been established as a nation, secrecy is not permitted under any circumstances. In other words, everything must be transparent so that we all have access to information about what happens in our country and, consequently, its effects on us. The goal is not to control the situation, unless it results in a limiting act for the development of our potential, which is, in itself, the defense of our ability to continue our progress in service to society. The goal is simply to treat it with respect, because the law allows it, and if the law permits it and it results in an attack on that potential, then, indeed, reforms must be made.

I am surprised that these principles are not understood in that office, which is also part of a university community. I feel disappointed because it maintains a reputation for being one of the most advanced, but in reality, it seems that the research is merely a smokescreen for the utterly barbaric spirit that pervades its halls. I feel hurt. This stems from the confusion between home and office, the only real difference being that one space allows for the management of all variables by each individual, as is the case with the home, while the other does not. In fact, the office should be seen as a relationship to the home, since the home implies more care, and thus work becomes a potential agency of contribution, because that rest, that activity, leads to products that benefit others. Personally, I thought this notion of mine was more of an excuse to avoid being idle, but now I see that I was wrong. In fact, this highlights the need for less time spent at work than at home, precisely to guarantee both work productivity and the care of that which allows our integration into society, since it is through work that we generate the ideas to organize ourselves.

I'm afraid to say it, but it seems to me that things are backwards in many countries, and I'm being dramatic, but I have a feeling that it's not an exaggeration for many people. I return to a question: To whom can this be said? In my culture, the issue lies precisely in the struggle; that is, the more one struggles, the more recognized one becomes. But despite this, the consequences are not taken into account, and therefore relationships are formed where one lives in constant anxiety, that is, one lives on scraps, which is nothing more than taking life lightly.

Even in my current situation, the reason for acting stems from the fact that others are doing it too; that is, it's based on what others are doing. It's based on the premise that we all suffer equally, otherwise, production suffers. I don't understand my country and I feel truly marginalized from it, for no other reason than my own, but with good reason: I have to defend myself against it because it's shaped by leading the individual through its various currents, without allowing them to exert any resistance, precisely because of this lack of foundation, which is the cultivation of their own ideas. Indeed, I feel completely isolated, not only at work, but also from my family. I don't like it, however, nor do I like the idea of ​​not defending myself, which consists of having clear principles by which to act and which lead to constantly building my progress in society. I ask again, to whom can I explain these things?

Many of the things that are still said among others are for no other reason than to ensure that they are still part of the norm. That's what these conversations amount to; they're not constructive, but rather they interpret the rule in a way that results in actions taken out of context. This is because, in principle, the focus is on the rule itself, not the context, and therefore, for goodness' sake, they become sources of tyranny. How can one not be worried when seeing these things? What's the issue now? A psychiatrist? A psychologist? Indeed, this nervousness, this anxiety, is necessary to understand the context and therefore act with caution. There are many limitations to being a good citizen, and that's precisely what it means to develop those potentials that allow for coexistence. And that's precisely the purpose of the law—not simply to be obeyed, which is a necessary consequence, but to serve as a tool for our lives in terms of coexistence, in this sense, establishing harmony according to the facts that determine our relationships.

No society exists to create structures in and of themselves, but rather they are the means to ensure that the events that make it become something transcended, thus with all those that arise to ensure that all individuals result not only in coexistence with each other over time but also with other peoples.

Stories in the same category