I've never been enticed by dichotomies like being vs. having or being vs. doing.
There are people with chronic car troubles, ratty clothing, and dirty homes who could be more materialistic, and people who can stand to work harder and be less satisfied with themselves.
In object altruism I've encountered a few patients lately who do bring a similar phrase to mind: giving vs. being
They either seem to need to do something impulsive and dangerous to impress others, have "party tricks" like chugging a pitcher of beer, have "interesting" facts about history or some subject that they want to offer up, or some other "gift" to give others.
To just "be" or talk about their tastes, feelings, or even be quiet doesn't seem to be an option.
As I've stressed for a long time now, their contributions aren't about their power or making them look superior, and register as an echoistic idealization of the other who they want approval from or to belong with. In some cases the idealization, and therefore the power in, the other doesn't have much, if any, significance and it's just an ontology of being outside and not in.
No comments:
Post a Comment