2013 Schizophrenia

I am like you. I am equally sure; you are like me.


We seldom attempt to see the whole truth. We convince ourselves that we have a broad vision and can deal with the context of all that exists, but in the nature of things, we are myopic. Not because we know less; often, because we know more. We are moderates, or perhaps – broaderates (it’s not a word). We have a large, broad world view. Which essentially means that we are accepting, understanding, and tolerant of all things in the world. That tolerance, we tell ourselves – comes from mutual respect. I may not agree in toto with what you say, but I will understand where you come from. The original purpose is noble – to embrace the world view – but after a while; there’s tempering and that tempering is all about dilution.


Frankly, no one wants to know you – they want to know the idea of you. Not your idea of you – their idea of you. All you have to do is slip once and the curse river will drown you. You didn’t match up to that isolated idea of you which they romanticised about. “He’s an amazing guy, except when he…” or “She is wonderful, but when…” – if you think hard about it – our true character is a sum of the exceptions that we are not allowed.

All your lofty ideas of love and friendship notwithstanding, they are not looking for you. We are not looking for them. I am not looking for you. You are not looking for me. We are all seeking ideas of them. So we expect responses in a certain way. And because people are people and they are more than what you expect, it all goes pear-shaped. There is no acceptance on an as-is basis. We create imagined images and we don’t like what reality presents. We seek the qualities of others to fulfil our own deficiencies. We seldom seek relationships because of them; we mostly seek it for us.


Irrespective, you should never stop being yourself. Because of the multi-dimensional impositions on being who we are, we will lose ourselves if we try to be everything to everybody. Imagine the sheer permutations and combinations. To aim to spread happiness all around is a good aim; but it comes with a prerequisite: you have to be happy yourself, first. if you are in your 20s you will not understand this post. If you are in your 30s, you might consider this post, if you are in your 40s (or more), you will probably know what I am speaking of.


Give people what they want. Not because you can give, but because of what they want. Never, however, part with any part of your self – just because they need it. Give what you can. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disturb that balance – you will not be you.


Things change. Allow them. The value systems you live by is like a Constitution. It should be the highest authority that guides your action. A Constitution is, however, an evolving document. Allow amendments, while abiding by your own philosophical constructs. Like a country that changes its aspirations, you are free to do the same. A romantic notion of a distant past should never cripple a possible future.


Usually, bloggers write, so that someone else will read it. I do not know if you know – we do not always write for you.


4 thoughts on “2013 Schizophrenia

  1. [Pedantic typo hunting — the brace after in your 40s should end after “or more”, else it’s a dangling construction]

    Apart from this (I have to do it :D) “Give people what they want. Not because you can give, but because of what they want”, I was with you all the way (before and after). If we were gods then “jo je wancheel to te labho” probably makes sense, but otherwis, can one really give people what they want. And that’s just practical limitation. But there is even more fundamental question there: why? I can see it as the logical continuation accepting people as what they are in toto (along with “what they want”). But just because you accept them in toto, does their wants become valid? A moral claim of sorts? Or do you mean it in a sense that magnanimity makes on bigger? What makes it more complex is because of the way you (accidentally?) juxtapose want and need. I would probably be more with you if it were “Give (or try to give) people what they need”. The question of deciding if the wants are actual needs is of course not easy to solve, and there is the danger of projecting needs as we perceive them.


    • Contrary to popular opinion I welcome corrections. Except that, since we are being pedantic, that was a parentheses, not a brace. Still, it was corrected. 😀

      The meat of your comment is much appreciated, however. I confess, I have used the want/need interchangeably – and I should not have done it. I have been so focussed on the rest of the matter of that thought, (“Never, however, part with any part of your self – just because they need it. Give what you can. Nothing more, nothing less.”) that I did not bother to refine the use of want/need. You are right, however. Without making a distinction between the need/want – if you can – give it (that is what intended to say). But your comment changes the texture of the thought. Perhaps, in a future schizophrenic account, it will manifest. 🙂


  2. err. typos typos and more typos from me. otherwis -> otherwise. Just practical should be just a practical … logical continuation OF accepting … does their wants –> do their wants …. makes on bigger –> makes one bigger. “because of the way” should not be there.

    I need coffee. No typos there.


Use your Twitter, Facebook or your WordPress account to comment

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.