The Argument

Okay, the moment of truth has arrived. I've been avoiding the obligatory relationship topics. I mean, it appears to be the niche of bloggers far and wide. Did I mention that if a blogger of color composes a blog, no less than 95% of that material is allowed to be about relationships? Yeah, I want to steer clear of the obvious engorging others with my experiences with the hopes that they could derive some benefit from it. Why? Because the short form regurgitation and application is something I hold great disdain for, as it removes the idea of practice & cultivation as a central theme in the applicable situations. My point is that people need to work to achieve a certain understanding and gifting them perspectives they haven't worked to is a selfish love. We shouldn't seek to save others pain but to help them develop the strength to overcome their weaknesses. Life ain't easy on purpose: survival of the fittest.(For all you semanticists, not the physically fittest but the entire package fittest).

With that being said, relationships offer people a mirror to stand in front of so that they may better recognize who they are. Why do I believe that? Simple. There is no source of conflict when there is little to no investment. However, when there is a great investment and a threat that the return may be minimal, emotions become a central motivator and things get personal. At this junction the conflict becomes salient. Conflict serves this purpose as a means to continue maintaining the relationship. The obstacle that conflict supplies must be overcome otherwise the pairing will dissolve. That is the opposite goal of getting together in the first place. This is where people need to learn to flex their truest sense of diplomacy, equality, social etiquette as well as their resolution skills.

There are innumerable ways for conflicts to progress (we aren't talking logical progressions). Typically, there will be a meeting of the minds amicably(good terms); a meeting of the minds grudgingly(good terms);a disparity of the minds(bad terms); agreeing to dislike each others ideas absolutely(bad terms) and of course the situation where no "ground" is gained whatsoever. [I split the directions into these four different absolutes for a few reasons: it's grid based logic and very simple to follow; there is an easy way to contrast and compare the different interactions; people who don't like to delve too deeply in contemplation/introspection can appreciate the brevity of the layout and it offers a quick learning curve to those who have little-to-no experience with this sort of idea.]

The most frequently occurring method of interaction is for an individual to speak from their perspective and how they see things/situations/interactions. This is an extremely limited way of communicating because it offers that this perspective is the best since it is a major player to initiate the conflict. These people should listen more and seek to talk less.

Next, would be the people who offer that they know some other person or have interacted with some authority to validate their internal set of thoughts. Unfortunately, this also relies on the original participant to be reliable in the manner which they relayed the makeup of the situation. Most people simple fail at it even while attempting to be impartial. These people need to learn to study their own ignorances and apply their own earned intellects to their own independently fostered complications.

Another way to go about interacting is the pretentious and unfortunately arrogant perspective of either "I'm trained in this so I'm better" or "I feel how I feel and you just need to accept it whether I'm right or I'm wrong". These are extremely unfair vantage points. You don't manipulate people into an obsequious position simple because you believe you have an advantage in one way or another. That isn't how strength works and unwittingly, the person in the "know", has become a slave to knowledge that they presume to have agency over. The tragedy is that these people may be correct but the invalid nature of their stance corroborates an inherent weakness with their approach which almost always leads to them violating their personal truths.

Yet another way is for the person who is simply the door mat for everything that is brought against them. Each individual must make an informed, well-composed and legitimate attempt to help improve their mate as well as themselves. This is something that not only illicits signs that one is invested but actively so and willing to "roll up the sleeves and get to work" improving together. This is a very important measure that is often underestimated by men of good intention.

Lastly, it'd be the people who seem not to be invested at all but simply dislike the idea of being proven wrong. It's such a misleading action. If you couldn't care less, then make that known and save everybody involved in the other person's life a bit of heartache and let them be without much ado. This is important. Personally, these people have more trouble than any one person needs. However, passing that pain on isn't helping anybody. If you cannot handle your own deal, then you might as well stay alone. There is absolutely no reason to bring misery to every heart you visit between here and home.

In closing, we all have had some form of these perspectives at some point in time. But the important function isn't where you came from but where you end up. Keep growing and continue to work on your arguments. The more effort you put into being in the quadrant with positive signs all around you, the happier you will be with what you accomplished by even getting there. And things only improve from there on. Attitude is everything here. Keep a good one and no matter the struggle face you wear, the argument won't get the best of you.

But I'm not infallible, maybe you see some part of the legend that I neglected. Hmmm, well add if you can and if you cannot, thank you for reading. ;-)