I have so many criticisms of people that I don't know where to begin. Everything is based purely on survival and achievement, completely disregarding feelings. The life I observe is simply about pretending not to experience anything, living the status quo at all costs, desperately. There's no room for novelty whatsoever; instead, everything operates from a place of progress based on strict tyranny, without allowing life any reflection unless it's for something that benefits progress, or at least its basic principles.

It's common to flee from the irritation caused by our actions, which is often called support, hence the, in my opinion, addictive embrace of groups. These groups aren't actually moving to recover the mobility of our individuality, but rather to create a settlement that justifies the escape, that avoids that feeling altogether, that pain which leads precisely to reflection, and in which many therapists have collaborated and even try to interfere without us realizing it, at the cost of justifying everything through sensations, without establishing a panorama of circumstances. The question is always this, and it's truly lamentable: "Do you feel okay?" This question alludes to a state of fulfilling expectations, of immobility, where there is no confrontation with pain, therefore no contextualization of the environment, and therefore no empowerment of the individual. I will never forget when a psychiatrist pointed out that I was searching for context for what was happening to me, passing it off as a symptom of some situation in which I found myself trapped, in her view, trying through disruptive gestures to shift my focus elsewhere, thus perpetuating my being in the midst of those circumstances and, on top of that, living with them at the cost of forgetting them. This is lamentable.

I feel I haven't had the right to have a single glimmer of conscience in a long time, because having one would be extremely dangerous for me, precisely because it implies a conflict that would reveal my value system, based on contextualization, and therefore result in a complete rejection of my environment, since this is precisely what is considered forbidden, as it implies future actions that could result in a rejection of the social structure itself. However, I need to conduct this analysis to understand my current situation. Since I don't share the same values ​​as others, I need to adapt them to achieve effective and meaningful interaction within my environment. This is determined by social movements that result in the preservation of my principles, and of course, by understanding their successes and failures. This allows me to guide my decisions and anticipate future social movements in accordance with them, always with a spirit of observation, and always starting from an understanding of the environment's modus operandi. It's interesting to note that many operations, both within the office and in many other places, are overlooked. In other words, the problem-solving framework and procedures aren't clearly defined. The assumption, as I'm observing, is that if there's no evidence, it's not related to any particular issue, in order to prevent any deviation from the norm.

It pains me to speak in these terms, but I fear that such structured and schematic language is necessary to holistically visualize the phenomena I experience, primarily of a social nature. This involves adapting my principles; undoubtedly, in practice, this translates into carrying out unusual actions. However, these actions are always consistent with my principles, or—and this is what allows for their flexibility—with a review of them as I progress. Many fail to do this as they progress, because they start from principles they seek to maintain at all costs, unless, of course, this very contradiction hinders their own progress. This is why people begin to compromise to a degree that allows for their perpetuation, but this remains within the realm of the personal and the private.

I feel, and I have to say it, that the world is becoming distorted by a clear lack of examination of what is being expressed from a materialist perspective, which is nothing more than dissecting the data before us and its implications in order to understand the phenomenon. This, in essence, is the spirit of philosophy. However, to whom can I share this? I would publish it online, but first, I'm in an office where we live in fear of being discovered by outsiders and under the threat of tacit coercion. In my town, free speech doesn't really exist.

Expressing an opinion in my country is completely impossible. It's assumed that one can express an opinion, but then assumes responsibility for the emotions that arise, without having used that very emotion to formulate relevant questions. I am utterly tired of having to act silently, without dialogue, to ensure my principles are respected, especially when those around me apply them to me. This results in a war of impositions, in which, fortunately, I have emerged victorious. When there is a war, I throw myself into it. Going into a war pretending everything is as it always is a clear strategic error, and many people in my town practice it. This results in a way of glorifying the victor's group and vilifying the loser's, in terms of establishing which group is better suited to its member's life. This is completely shameful. It doesn't become a struggle between individuals but a way of aggrandizing the group of origin, thus establishing the notion of the good winner and the good loser, as well as the idea of ​​fighting to the end. In other words, it's a way of expressing that one has always been with the group and that, despite life's challenges, one will not abandon it, clearly expressing through the Love for God or Saint, the priority is the group, the identity, the institution through which the group is assumed, and not the individual. Hence, the fact that leaving a group is grounds for rejection by other groups, of course, in order to maintain the existing balance between groups, is so pronounced.

It is horrifying how many things I have recently observed in my travels around the world. I don't see the world situated within its environment, not at all, but rather everything is imposed, whether through passivity or activity, in both cases resulting in a kind of threat due to the disruption of order. This disruption leads to changes in the environment by the individual who carries them out, as well as by those who receive the disruption and by others, precisely because it involves novel cases and therefore the possibility of conflict within the group. There are many things to reflect on, and I am overwhelmed. I don't know what to delve into; rather, as I dig deeper, I generate new ideas. One of the things that surprised me was that the initial rejection by two girls within the institutional setting resulted in a hug, thanks to their disruptive approach to reciprocating the established order when no one else was doing so. This gives me hope for the future because, outside of that established order, their behavior no longer serves to support it; rather, there's nothing inherently threatening to prevent them from reciprocating, or rather, deepening their connection, and thus being congruent with their feelings. This had worried me; I acknowledged the incongruity of them not opening up about their feelings under the same group conditions. However, the fact remains that their actions, through the confrontation of the relationship with gestures and few words, demonstrate that they are indeed involved.

Stories in the same category