When Ego values do not coincide with those of the Context, Contextual contradiction occurs. Contextual imbalance can create, among other emotional responses, suffering, stress, anxiety, fear, frustration, and anger. Under such conditions a subject’s implicit tendency is to neutralize the Contextual contradiction. Naturally, however, when this happens, one’s contexts will immediately sense they are being contradicted and, in turn, prepare to neutralize the threat posed to “their” integrity. Worse still, the very reason one feels contradicted is because they truly ‘are’ non-coincidental or out of balance with those values their Contexts experience as confirming. Any attempt at neutralizing a structural reality (the non-coinciding subject trying to deny the reality of their imbalance) will invariably fail because all attempts at contradicting existential reality can never be successful.
Regrettably, it is nearly impossible to change who we are nor effectively change the configuration of our Context. Indeed in cases of relational non-coincidence or imbalance, one is limited to either acquire a more confirming Context or compensate for one’s non-coincidence by creating the behavior that is expected of them only this time “on their terms”; a task which can sometimes be daunting indeed. If, for example you are “expected” to be a successful accountant but you love music not numbers, you might try and write a sales-getting jingle for an accounting firm in the hope of impressing your Context you are, at least, doing something related to the world of accounting. Sadly, no matter what a subject may do to “compensate” for his or her relational imbalance, the Context is almost never fooled and the subject’s relationship with its Context will remain non-coincidental. Getting close to what a Context demands or expects of one, can, sometimes, keep the wolves of contradiction at bay and perhaps produce some measure of relief from the destructive effects of total contradiction.
On the other hand, the use of neutralization is almost never effective. Although neutralization is often Man’s first choice of action, it invariably leads to increasing, not eliminating contradiction. Keep in mind that when a subject’s attempts to neutralize a contradiction (i.e. contradict the contradiction) that neutralization is, almost invariably experienced, by the originally offending object, as simply another contradiction. This situation can easily culminate in a reciprocal chain reaction of mutual contradiction instead of a final resolution of the conflict. Perhaps the only neutralizations which may bring some relief are those which have the best chance of non-retaliation (the mayonnaise jar that won’t open is thrown across the room resulting in it breaking ). Here, as long as there is no further contextual intervention, at least the contradiction has been contradicted.
CLOSE THIS WINDOW