It is always a question of trying to find out what one needs to do or not to do. Those who have developed the art of understanding or the right action and inversely refrain from engaging in those actions which often may be deemed inappropriate are seen as wise.
Therefore, it is all about being responsible in life. This is not a simpleton of engaging in one’s work but more of engaging or reconnecting with the life process as a whole where it comprises of duty … where the call is not simply about earning but more so about creating a balance towards the self but also keep a profile of engaging with those with whom one has an affinity and or seeing the importance of the facticity as it unveils itself of which one is a part.
Within a family that is about where one has grown up and adhering to a general mission as often may be the case at an informal level where values are taught and shared in an atmosphere of respect. Covey had talked about actually having such a mission statement as being vital for promotion of values.
Without a common mission statement, there is a tendency for a family group to drift apart and be easily influenced by exterior forces where before one knows other norms may be adopted…. which leads one to adopt ways based on the outer rather than the inner.
The former brings a state of flux whilst in the latter there is a norm, a format, an agreed consensus. It is towards such a form, that is more in line with the dialectics albeit within the superficial and for that matter even successful business has a vison, a goal of how to be.
Or as the dictum of ‘to fail to plan is planning to fail’ suffice to make the point that one has to look inwards at the depth of being and seek to be from that. The reactionary though has its own agenda at being just at a level as govern by the mental as it contacts matter.
Most families have an unwritten brief about how to be. That keeps all in check and one moves about in a safe environment but sometimes where things become far too suffocated some members may feel the need not to adhere to its ways…. Hence, we have a rebellion and or drifting about and around. That is where it seems that there is no real consensus. Suddenly each and every member seems to drift about and apart moving around to discover other ways and where the aspect of togetherness is gone and thrown to the dust.
Part of the reason may lie with a figure head or lack of it where there has never been a more rigorous upbringing unlike in some families which have strict ways as how to be. In such a situation at least, everyone knows what to or how to go about moving onwards.
In such a way there may not variations but rather each one is aware fully of what is expected from the other. Or what to do and not what to do. Expectations and the ways are set clearly and there are no confusions. This may not be the case where there have been a kind of more non rigorous upbringing where each and every other is deemed as equal within the framework of family. In such a mode of being, no one is disrespected. Each is seen of as one who is already a valuable member.
The flip side of this is that it is too loose. Every other suddenly awakens and feels that there is no longer any meeting point where that sense of togetherness has gone precisely as there is no meeting of the minds. There is a meeting at the physical level where simpleton of greetings is exchanged but in truth it is all at a level of the mind without a real or an interactive connection or more precisely a lack of togetherness or rapport with one another.
The tendency is to adopt other norms, lifestyle. Or take shelter of even antagonistic ways. What is left is a non-cognisable of the arena where one grew up. The cry is can one revert back to the old days. Sorry comrade your game is up. It is time to move either forward, onwards or left or right sideways but there is no going back in time where quality was at the heart of being where existence was a simpleton of being. Gone are those days.
Or we also seek to be secretive in our dealings with one another. Life itself teaches us that we need to maintain a non-open dealing with others about us lest we fall prey in our naivety to others who is ready to pounce on our innocence. That this is so is obvious and it is good to maintain a scepticism of this form with the other for our own sake less we are betrayed.
What seems to happen in the case that such scepticism bears no credibility within a family or should not as the family is the arena where we beget our sense of security and growth. To not be open at least within the nucleus form is a case for concern although one may understand if this still maintained within the larger family group.
Trust is paramount for a relationship to flourish and moving on: without the latter, one may cut a lonely figure. In many ways a family provides even one’s raison detre. A lack of trust shows in a way drifting apart of the self and where this is the case, it is wise that parties concerned either revised their modal beingness or precisely move on rather than be cold and callous and or rebellious and or take shelter of violence even in its verbal form which causes distress not only on the doer but also on other around and about.
The emerging question from all this is it possible to make sense of this maze or just carry on in bad faith that of indeed despise of the relevant other and seeing one self as the core a patron par excellence whilst negating the other. In this dilemma, whatever happened to that family mission? Or indeed the desire to create or recreate one! Yet in a way this is precisely the nature of the frivolous self as entangled in the ways of the world! Time to awakened and just observe!