Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Good in Goodbye
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Giving Up the Anchor
I hope this post does not come across like an invitation to a self-pity party. That is not what I am trying to impose; simply, I am attempting to accomplish the reason why people relentlessly come in and out of my life. And what I am realizing is that the answer to my question is an elementry, yet reoccurring, inevitable concept. The concept or so-called answer is: change.
So here is my theory. Maybe relationships are like a free swinging door, because the people that enter and leave our lives are key components to a forthcoming cycle of change. Maybe these relationships are not granted to last forever because maybe in order to fully transform into who you are supposed to become, you must let go and free yourself of who you were and who you are now. Maybe these relationships that we can call our own right now, we must grasp on to, and enjoy to the fullest while they last. In contrast, maybe these relationships that we have lost are like anchors to our souls; they weigh heavy in our hearts, but if we struggle to hold on, we will never fully be able to become who we are deemed to be.
Before I stop my seemingly endless rant, I want to address something. Starting now, I do not need 39 days to face the inevitable. Starting now, I am freely accepting the fact that people will and always leave. Starting now, I am befriending change and giving up the anchor.
"Maybe the past is an anchor holding us back. Maybe you have to let go of who you are in order to become who you will be."
-Sex and the City
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
How to Grow Up- for Dummies?
For starters, last year I learned about a psychoanalyst known as Erik Erikson. He had two major themes:
- The world gets bigger as we go along; and
- Failure is cummulative.
In short, Erikson believed that life is a series of challenges and lessons which help us to become who we are today. Hence in Erikson terms, I would be classified under two stages: identity vs. role confusion and intimacy vs. isolation. Identity vs. role confusion theorizes the idea that when one is between the age block of 12-18, one's development relies on what has been done to determine what to do. Consequently, this must explain why the events partaken in my life have influenced what I do and who I am. On the other hand, when one is between the age block of 18- 35, one is categorized under Erikson's theory of intimacy vs. isolation. This hypothesizes that at this stage in one's life, there is a desire to find satisfying relationships, which would then form intimacy. However if intimacy is not successful, isolation occurs. So consequently, I have lost many relationships in my life; and truth be told, I have aspired and pictured myself forming strong, genuine relationships in college. Therefore, if both stages are so applicable that they are textbook definitions of who I am and who I will be, then is that really it?
The thing is, I would hate to think that life is that simple, that I am that simple. In fact, a good friend of mine shared a concept that in order to define is to limit. So now with this notion, I believe that there is no single, dependent, probable way to define growing up. Because considering the statement above, to define how to grow up is to limit how to grow up. Therefore, the joke's on me. I just tried to sum up a personal, definitely not formulaic (proving how awful I am at math) account/manual to growing up. I just tried to define growing up, and by doing so I may have just limited myself to growing up.
Then again in perspective, that right there just emphasized what growing up is all about. I challenged myself to define growing up, and the lesson is that I simply cannot. Aka, this is another failed attempt to add to my entwined vicious cycle. Let me just leave it at this:
"I don't like defining myself. I just am."
-Britney Spears
