A new photo for Argentine passport

This post is not about having an Argentine passport. This is about an analysis that I made observing a night when two people ended up together and how. Maybe I thought this would be our portrait of daily routine, maybe somewhat serious as a photo of passport should be.

I never thought that the dynamic of these two personalities that I’d describe below would ever work. But since the social world is out of logical comprehension full of emotional uncertainty, it is hard to understand for me how the interaction of these two personalities would start off. But it worked, and it is beautiful. Gazes are exchanging with a hint of satisfactory smiles. You might wonder now what kind of personalities that I’d describe. Here come those:

Personality 1
This person constantly victimise himself, and out of this victimisation tries to get attention from others. It can be understood as his family background that he might have grown up competing his twin brother who is perceived more masculine and successful in his own society. Pushed away to periphery in his own family environment, this person might have developed to be a bit of weird voluntarily, to amuse people around and to get attention from them. I’ve noticed that many of this certain personality try to prove their sexual frontier, mentioning unconventional personal stories on the table. But being a victim of a certain history and victimisation are two different concepts, as one being a memory while the other being a choice. They say they don’t need to be validated by others, but even saying so, they seek the validation from others. This validation comes with dramas so to keep their lives more seemed interesting and dynamic. This personality energises people around with his certain social energy. He is fun, because he makes fun out of himself. He might call himself weird, crazy or alcoholic, but this victimisation also has a positive aspect that drives to occur an unexpected social interaction. Being in a periphery pays off.

Personality 2
This person seeks the response from others. Physically touchy he is, but there seems no such intention to physically hook up. This personality frankly confuses me of his sincere-ness, because he keeps interacting with a person of whom he might talk badly on the back. I analyse that this comes from the desire to be perceived as a good person, so even though it’s not his full interest, he demonstrates his goodness keeping interaction with others. But maybe it applies to any other personalities as well. He is a responsible person following his settlement track on city life, between his hardworking job and personal entertainment. He knows how to take care of others, for having grown up with his younger siblings, and for that, he might seek to be cared by others. The solitude is a good motivation for generating social interaction. As many suffer to find a person who understands them, maybe this person also feel lonely as the rest of us, so seeks the response from others.

I didn’t intent to drag out my judgement but understanding how those minds work. Doing so, I understand how my mind works ironically, since all minds share patterns of thinking and as so I could observe such patterns from others. If there were a judgement, it was only for my own mind, and no others’. This is my serious portrait for my representation of identity: the very identity I have formed here in Buenos Aires.

Like I mentioned before, it was out of my comprehension why those two people hooked up the last moment of the night. One was almost harassing the other, and the other was almost rejecting. Maybe it was a game between them, which I never could understand, since for me a relationship never is a game but a matter of respect. What I observed was kind of a fencing sport, poking and retreating back and forth. One kept saying that he got insulted by some reckless words that the other had made, and the other kept sticking around to prove or compensate himself good. I’d categorise this as a toxic conversation which leads no betterment but constant validation for baseline between the two. But I should admit that this is how human relationship works, if not those individuals are like Howard, Dominique or Wynand in the great novel The Fountainhead. Eventually, we are all like Keating, a moderate and normal human being in this modern world.

At the very night, one of my friends told me that he started watching a Japanese series in Netflix. I even didn’t know there would be a Japanese series presented in Netflix, so I was awed. The more awed thing was how he described the series. People are so formal in their relationship, so he couldn’t understand well while watching the tv show, but still watching it because the cultural difference fascinates him. But here comes my analysis and also my fear of human relationship:

human relationship, especially the romantic one, is like the distance between two hedgehogs. When a hedgehog is excited or has less confidence he or she tends to sharpen the thorns. When not, their thorns become a smoothen fur. When they don’t know how to control their thorn, its better to keep a bit of distance not to hurt the other hedgehog next to him or her. The closer the distance becomes, the more possibility they hurt each other at some point. Across the all cultures, human beings understand this emotion. In some cultures they develop to keep safe but closest distance, while other cultures people develop how to keep their thorns down as possible. Surely, across these cultures of human interaction, many people don’t care but rush into others hurting and getting hurt at last. It surely works as well, with an anticipation of its end.

So should I analyse how the two ends met? That one kept harassing the other was as approaching without counting the distance that two thorns might hurt each others. Maybe the friendly environment let their thorns guard down, resulting them to touch each other’s smooth fur. Maybe it was their way to call Touché (called out by the fencer who is hit) when got poked by the other. It’s still a game.

This results me a question to rise: Should I participate the game?

I’ve already decided that I’d not participate this kind of game, for every game is based on competition, which results to possession and violence. Winning is easy, but maintaining the glory becomes harder as the winner stays still in the game rule. It’s a dangerous gamble at last because the chips are one’s confidence and capacity to love. Playing is fun, but losing would be miserable. When the game gets bored, as in the fencing sport, one pokes frequently and harder for the other to call Touché. The more one calls Touché he or she at last will leave the game.

I, without any qualification, gave an advice then: Don’t try too hard to get his attention rather give him your attention. Don’t seek the validation from him, rather, validate him so that he can feel understood and valued. If you don’t want any end, don’t play the game. The very structure is a game is to win or to lose, which means any case an end.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s