I have been told I am intimidating to talk to / approach about certain things.
I know. I was shocked, too.
I have painstakingly built myself (ever-growing, of course) to be kind to others. To be certain I am approachable by being more accepting, less judgemental, good-humored, open-minded as my little brain can muster and try to be forever-patient. Because this is what I would want in a person who I had to break news to, who I had to ask hard questions, to whom I needed to help with a personal issue, etc... Turns out everyone is different and the person who I need may not be the person you need.
(I'll grab the EKG.)
So while I am certain that I have succeeded in creating/becoming the easiest person in the whole entire universe to tell something to - to approach - in reality all I have done is create the easiest person for me to talk to. Which, if you think about it, is really nearly just as useless (if not arguably moreso) than not creating anything/wasting my time with this silly little project whatsoever. I don't need to talk to me - I'm me. I need to talk to others, if anyone. And vise verse. But if everyone is different / needs a different unique combination of things out of me, how am I to know what things to be? How am I to choose? Better yet: how am I to be everything?
Is it even my duty to be everything to everyone / anything to anyone? Well, in my opinion: no. First of all that's impossible. Second of all, I feel as though this is one of those Life Choices scenarios where you choose what to put your energy toward. And no, just because you are not dedicating your time / making it your entire life's worth to be something to a number of others, that doesn't mean you're a bad person. Well, it might mean that some others think you're a bad person, which is valid... I guess it's time for a well-placed "who's to say?".
What I am pondering on - whether I get an answer or not - is:
If someone feels as though they need to talk to me about something but they are too afraid to / find me too intimidating to do so: is that my fault? Or the other person's? Does it even matter? (Of course it doesn't matter, not really, anyway. But I'd still like to know.)
If it was the other person's fault, it would be because they - essentially - made a decision to not ask me / tell me whatever it is they felt they originally had to. That they were - in some capacity - unable to do so.
If it was my fault, it would be because I didn't make myself available enough to the other party. I was not considerate enough. Being considerate is very important to me. It is also a slippery slope. It is also one of those things that others will likely chastise you for not being as well as for being "too considerate" / a people-pleaser / what-have-you. It is also - as I have said - completely and entirely unimportant to know where "the fault" lies, on this one. Partially because it is mostly an opinion-base, partially because there are so many seemingly bigger things to worry about / focus on, etc...
But that is the fun of having an OCD-mind: you fixate and you take infinity to process and it is all due to an unbridled need to know if something was your fault / if you were the one to blame. That way, you can not only loathe yourself for it for an inhumane amount of time, but also so you can work on it and correct it so that it (hopefully) doesn't happen again.
Also: just coming from a spiritually-ever-growing being (human bean), I would absolutely love to keep learning and improving the person I am. And one of the reasons for the drive for exponential improvement is to ever-improve the company my loved ones keep.
No comments:
Post a Comment