Future-oriented existence
and psychological well-being

Why we love to hate: Contradiction accumulation

Contradiction forms a fundamental part of our relational lives. Where there is human relational activity, contradiction will eventually take place. We may all follow the norms set forth by the existential Structure that guides us, but each one of us is different from everyone else. Therefore, it is inescapable that our genetic and environmental differences will eventually provoke contradictions that we will be obliged to confront. When contradictions appear, we will immediately set out to deal with them and either try to neutralize them or find ways of side-stepping or compensating for their destructive powers. It is not, however, always possible to quell the damaging effects of the contradictions we receive. Contradictions that are not dealt with at once, can accumulate as they await compensation or neuralization. They don’t go away. They accrue. Stored unresolved contradictions await the right opportunity to be structurally dispensed with. Those who suffer from acute accumulated contradictions are constantly on the lookout for ways to quash or counterbalance past unsettled contradictions.

For example, when we’re able to identify someone or something as contradicting, we recognize an opportunity to vicariously neutralize or compensate for their contradictory nature and do so with impunity. Those who do hateful things, after all, form a part of our environment and, therefore, are clearly within our relational sphere. This is why we “love to hate.” The emotion of hate itself has its neutralizing effects. The emotional experience of hating someone or something, especially when our sense of hate is supported by others (others within our environment agree that our feelings are justified), brings structural relief to he or she who does the hating.

Relational logic, value, and common sense

Our behavior, as humans, is driven by the positive or negative, affirming or contradicting value of each relational event we experience. The relational value of a specific object or event, however, is not necessarily uniform. The value or significance that your best friend, your first car, or your next vacation may have for you will not necessarily be felt as such by anyone else. Value is not inherent to any specific thing or occurrence. Relational values and meanings are exclusively the result of relational circumstance. In short, value is the by-product of a subject’s relational experience under a particular series of circumstances at a particular moment in time. That said, relational justice, logic, or correctness can be shared by individual subjects or groups of subjects.

So-called common sense, for example, is derived exclusively from the relational circumstances certain individuals or groups commonly share. Again, there is no such thing as an inherent or universally shared value. That which is common sense for individual X or group A may be sensed as completely senseless for individual B or group Y.

Here is an example: Matt and his family might think it senseless that their neighbor spent $1,000 dollars for an old beat-up table they found at a garage sale. Yet when Matt’s family discovers that the garage sale table brought $6,000 at a local auction, the family’s view of the logic behind buying the table changes. After all, for many, it is common sense that making money easily is a good thing.

Behavioral hand-me-downs

Our psychological dependency on environmental confirmation is absolute. Without some sort of relational echo from our environment, we simply cannot survive. In other words, confirmation (relational recognition) of the existential reality that we are, is an unrelenting, 24-7 requirement. The content of that confirmation, however, can be varied and often consists of that kind of experiential data that your environment is accustomed to echoing back to you. Interestingly, as long as the objects of our most common, everyday relationships don’t present unusual relational responses, although we will be aware of the relational confirmations we receive, we won’t necessarily be conscious of them. That said, anytime an expected echo substantially varies, we will notice the change at once and react to it. “Are you all right, George?” “Is there something wrong, Mary?”

If your environment has habitually related to you with kindness, love, and understanding, there is a good chance that those will be the ways you will relationally interact with your environment going forward. If, however, cruelty, abuse, and violence have been the way your existence has, in the past, been recognized (confirmed) by your environment, it is likely that that is how you will confirm (recognize) or relationally interact with others. The way you were confirmed during the initial formation of your self is your primary source for knowing what confirming relational interaction looks and feels like. That experience, then, is the only reference you will have when you search for ways to relationally interact with others. In essence, you know of no other way to relationally be. Indeed, this is the reason why humans tend to repeat behaviors born of their primary or initial environments.

Exceptions to the rule

Having said the above, we must keep in mind that the ability to adapt to our environment depends radically on the relational needs of our genetic egos. If a genetic ego contains psychological requirements that are experienced as vital, tending to those needs will take priority over any need to tend to one’s environment. For example, if Jerry was “born with a chip on his shoulder,” no matter what relational echo Jerry receives from his environment of an affirming or positive nature,  Jerry will structurally be required to neutralize the contradictions contained in his genetic ego before he’ll be able to be on a receptive level with his environment. First comes the need to rid one of contradiction, then will come the need to welcome affirmation.

Direct and indirect contradictions

Existential contradiction may be our worst enemy and yet it is an inevitable, necessary, and ever-present part of the relational lives we lead. After all, we are all different and differences unavoidably create contradiction.

There are two fundamental kinds of contradiction—direct and indirect—and both are interrelated.

Indirect contradictions

Indirect contradictions contradict a subject’s environmental self and its goal-seeking intentions.

Direct contradictions

Direct contradictions refer to contradictions that contradict elements of a subject’s genetic self.

All contradictions must be neutralized

No matter what a contradiction’s origin may be or how a contradiction may manifest itself, subjects will often attempt to eliminate their contradiction’s destructive effects through any means available. Direct contradictions, for example, may be met with attempts at compensation, and indirect contradictions may be dealt with through targeted neutralization. Whatever the case may be, most attempts to eliminate contradiction can be insufficient or ineffective and become catalysts for further structural conflict. For example, in indirect contradiction, you hit me, I hit you, so you hit me back, ad-infinitum. An example of direct contradiction would be: you become the person your parents want you to be but are profoundly unhappy pretending to be that person.

The power of human thought

Even though what we think that others think of us and what we think of others constitute virtual experiences (guesswork), it is still what makes up the lion’s share of our psychological interaction with our environment. Whatever we think about other things or other people, those thoughts invariably contain value judgments. Value judgments, as you’ll remember, either affirm or contradict those about which those judgments are made and, therefore, have importance in our daily psychological lives. In short, we care about what we think that others think of us because whatever the results of such perceptions are, they affect our view of the world around us, how we think of ourselves, and ultimately how we’re able to maintain the status of our mental health. In reality, being the relational beings that we are, our very existence depends on the relational echo (confirmation) we receive from others. In other words, our very existence depends not on our own selves but rather on what we think others think or feel about us.

That which we think a loved one thinks of us can either bring us joy or it can make us sad, inspire hope or dampen our spirits, make us feel proud or make us feel ashamed.

Few of us would refuse the opportunity to have a monument of ourselves placed in our hometown square. At least that way, someone might think of us from time to time. (Could it possibly be that the thoughts are so powerful as to give life back to the dead?)

We lay flowers at a loved one’s tomb, imagining that our thoughts will affect their existential status.

We feel guilty if we forget to wish a friend happy birthday, arrive late to a social function, or accidentally insult someone we admire, but only because of what they might think of us.

When a friend is ill, we write them and say, “We’re thinking about you,” in the hope that knowing that we’re simply thinking about them will make that person feel better.

We even care what those with whom we have only the slightest of contact may think about us, like an unknown passer-by on the street or our local newsvendor. Indeed, that which we think of others or imagine that others think of us is as vital to our psychological existences as is the very air we breathe. On a psychological level, and whether or not that level is subconscious or conscious, thinking that others think positively about us is just one more relational event that keeps us mentally healthy.

Relational balance and mental health

Finding balance, equilibrium, positive conformity, coincidence, or correlations between your genetic self and your environmental self is a key requirement for maintaining mental health. Coincidence or conformity with one’s environment creates a myriad of affirmative psychological emotions like pleasure, joy, and general satisfaction. It also provides a positive self-image and, subsequently, strong feelings of self-confidence. Non-coincidence between one’s genetic self and one’s environment, on the other hand, inevitably creates relational imbalance and, therefore, negative emotions like unhappiness, frustration, and despair. Such situations are also frequent creators of poor self-images and/or damaged self-confidence. If, for example, you were born with a love for reading, are musically inclined, and your hair is blond, and your environment holds in esteem those who read, have musical talents, and are blond, you’ll be in balance with your environment and all will be well. If, however, who and how you do not coincide with your environment’s values, you will be out of balance with that environment and, subsequently, the victim of continual contradiction.

The relational power of the animate object

“All I have to do is look at my girlfriend and I know right away if I’m in trouble. My dog seems to know what I’m thinking about too.”

Among all the objects contained in our environment, it’s the animate object that wields the most relational power. Animate objects have an exceptional capacity to express themselves and, therefore, communicate the degree of relational value they sense we have. A single-cell amoeba or your common house fly may not be good examples of animate objects that are all that expressive, but when you start talking about a well-trained parakeet or your dog Spot, you are getting closer to that kind of animation that makes for effective relational communication. So who are the best communicators of all? Humans, of course. Humans are powerhouses of relational expression and, therefore, the most effective source of relational echo we have at our disposal.

Expectation and demand

“The other day, I was about to grab my dark blue shirt out of the closet when I heard Karen shout from downstairs, ‘Know what? You’re wearing that dark blue shirt of yours tonight.’ It was weird, but after that, I couldn’t bring myself to put it on.”

Demand and our relational structure

When someone demands something or expects something from us, we often find ourselves unable to fulfill their expectation. Frequently there can be something about an unexpected or unsolicited demand that leaves us cold.

Here is why: Relationships take place between subjects and objects: you and another person or you and another thing. In order to maintain The Structure’s relational integrity, everybody must know to whom or to what their behavior truly belongs, themselves or the source of the made demand.

Take note, for example, that every time you feel obligated to behave in a specific way, the dynamics of the relationship established between you and your behavior must have the correct relational polarity (subject-object), or you’ll be unable to do what is demanded of you…at least without first establishing what the correct polarity is. This is why we are often so deeply affected by expectation or demand. When someone expects or demands we do something, it’s quite possible that structurally speaking, they are actually asking us to contradict ourselves. In such cases, we will subconsciously become aware of the contradiction and halt carrying out the expected behavior. We will subconsciously ask ourselves, does the demanded behavior belong to me or the person who made the demand? If we sense that it came from the person who made the demand, we will subsequently either not comply with the demand or try and correct its polarity. Being that The Structure does not allow us to associate with contradiction without there being emotional and behavioral consequences, we will first try to set any incorrectly placed relationally polarity straight and then proceed to act.

Correcting polarity

Normal, run-of-the mill-demands, of course, are made and complied with every day, but only because the relational polarity of those demands are properly positioned. That is, that all involved with the demand know who made the demand and whose obligation it is to follow it whether they voluntarily wish to or not. (The demand is clearly not born from the subject who must carry out the demand but from a demanding person or object)

If, for example, someone demands something from a subject that the subject doesn’t want to do, a simple demonstration on the part of the subject of opposition to the demand or non-conformity is sufficient to re-position relational polarity and allow the subject to complete what is demanded of them.

When, for example, Jerry’s mother obliges Jerry to wear his blue shirt, all Jerry has to say to his mother is: “Aw come on, do I have to?” or “I’d already chosen that shirt anyway,” and Jerry’s relational polarity will be re-positioned in such a way that Jerry can complete his mother’s request. If, however, Jerry is unable to communicate his non-conformity with the demanded task, he won’t be able to comply with his mother’s wish.

The power of demand can sometimes surprise us. Some types of behavior can even be stopped in mid-stream because of the appearance of unexpected demand.

If, like Jerry, for example, you plan to do something that, all of a sudden, someone tells you they now expect of you, the only way you can fulfill the expectation is if you can demonstrate that you are the author of the action to be completed (“I was just going to do that”). If, however, you are unable to set your relational polarity straight (making a declaration to others or even just to yourself), try as you may, you will not be able to complete the demanded task.

Your environment, your self

As you relationally grow, outside demands slowly creep into your daily life. They have to. One’s ego or genetic self cannot always be in coincidence or conformity with the relational goals originating from the environment.

Billy, as an example, might want to play all day, then cuddle up in bed with mom and dad. But, sometimes, mom and dad want to cuddle together all by themselves. Billy will comply but show his disappointment in being obligated to sleep in his own room. Disappointment signals non-conformity or rejection of those relationships we sense as contradicting. He or she who rejects contradiction demonstrates that contradiction should not be considered as part of who they are.

“Why so much demand?”

“Why so much expectation?”

“Why can’t people just accept me as I am?”

When relational imbalance occurs (you are not what your environment wants you to be,)  your environment is forced to use demand to acquire the confirmations it desires.  In such cases, all of a sudden, it’s no longer enough for you just to be you. Now, in order to acquire the confirmations you require from those around you, you must do what’s expected of you. This means that as infancy turns to childhood, gratuitous confirmation rapidly grinds to a halt, and the need to earn one’s relational confirmations appears for the first time.

Now you have to eat when you’re not hungry or not eat when you are, take a nap when you’re not tired but wake up when you are. Stop shouting; put clothes on when you want them off; take clothes off when you want them on; smile on command; stop crawling, start crawling; get off the couch, get back on it; eat a piece of fruit when you really want cake; walk when you want to run, run when you want to walk; put your toys away, get your toys out. In short, as long as your self remains under construction, the list of demands you must comply with goes on and on. It’s a good thing you sense that everyone knows where all those demands are coming from. Everyone seems to know that they’re not yours, or you, pretty much, couldn’t move at all. Remember, as long as one’s relational polarity is well-identified or defined, all will be well. It’s when subject/object polarity is ill-defined, confusing or out and out wrong that there will be trouble in Dodge.

How we deal with demand

Having to complete demands is clearly not something you’re obliged to do only during infancy. Demands are part of life. The only difference is, sometimes you voluntarily submit yourself to demand scenarios. For example, you might join a club, the military, or a specific rule-dominated organization.

There is also the possibility, however, that you don’t have an option to change the sources of the demands you receive, like when you are in school or at work. But just as long as you’re sure everyone knows who’s expecting what from whom, one’s psychological waters will be calm.

Be that as it may, here are some more ways we can deal with demand or expectation when we feel contradicted by same.

• We can neutralize the contradictory nature of the demand. (Contradict the contradiction, neutralize it by refusing to comply.)
• Properly situate the polarity of the demand. (Make sure everyone knows who’s demand it is.)
• Find compensation for the demand. (Enter a demand environment on one’s own terms.)
• In addition, as you leave childhood and initiate your march toward adulthood, you have yet another option for reducing the possible contradictory effects of demand. You can abandon your relationship with the source of unwanted expectation and go somewhere else to acquire the affirmations you need. In short, you can change environments.

Peer environments and demand control

Peer groups or parallel environments can provide relief from demanding primary ones. That doesn’t mean that parallel environments or peer groups can entirely take over the relational position, influence, or impact of one’s primary environment or that such environments are demand-free. Parallel environments can, indeed, be just as demanding as one’s primary environment. The advantage to having access to a parallel environment or peer group is that one can better control potential threats by having environmental options. “Marching to a different drummer” or shifting from Environment A to Environment B sends a clear signal to Environment A that it is no longer one’s controlling environment, a realization that Environment A’s contradictory power has significantly lessened.

Forming a part of a new and different specific environment, like a new social group, political party, or religion, can, for a subject, be an ostensible sign of allegiance to a completely different source of confirmation, giving that subject assurances they would not normally have were they solely dependent on only one source of environmental confirmation.

Again, demonstrating one’s allegiance to a parallel environment is an effective way of disarming a previously significant environment of its power of contradiction. Indeed, once you are able to demonstrate that you now revere the values of a different confirming group, you no longer are a viable target for contradiction from those who once controlled you.

Example: A subject joins a new religion, the military, a secret society, becomes a vegetarian, or announces that now they gain all their environmental needs through meditation or from the teachings of Guru Maharishi Purushiam.

The power of collective environments

“Every time I need to convince my mother that she should give me something, I just tell her
everybody has one.” Most of the time, that seems to do the trick or, at least, get her thinking about it.

In general, there are two kinds of environments that can echo back to us their version of who they think we are: Our general environment (our family, social group, school, sports club, etc.), or that environment’s more collective version (church or religious affiliation, social club, political group or party).

Individual social groups are made up of animate or inanimate objects (individual things that are alive and individual things that are not). Collective sources of confirmation represent entire groups of animate or inanimate objects, like the members of your church or political party or the number of cars you have in your garage.

Collective groups of all kinds have a greater echoing power than almost any individual object ever could. Relationally speaking, there really is power in numbers. A singular object that echoes back to us who we are is one thing, but many of those objects have many times as much echoing power.

Our existential structure and mental illness

By understanding the existential structure that guides us, we may more easily understand the powerfully decisive role contradiction plays in our psychological well-being. In essence, due to each of our unique genetic backgrounds as well as our exclusive relational circumstances, we all attempt to find, with or without assistance, our own unique way to deal with the destructive effects of contradiction. In the end, no matter how, or in what way, we may choose to deal with contradiction, our behavior should not be separately labeled, categorized, or diagnosed as if its varied manifestations reflected specific kinds or types of mental illness, but rather manifestations of one singular structural event: The presence of existentially formulated structural contradiction.

Pain and pleasure. Love. Infatuation.

Those interior and exterior stimuli that move us to action do so in close coordination with our beliefs. Indeed, it is our belief systems that determine if our relationships are experienced as affirming or contradictory. Once a relationship has been determined to be affirming, we will implicitly embrace that relationship. In contrast, when we sense that the relationship may be contradicting, we will do our best to either avoid the experience entirely or, if the experience is unavoidable, we will either try to neutralize the contradiction or compensate for its destructive effects on our psyches. According to the way our existences are structured, we will imperatively avoid contradiction but seek affirmation, and it will be our belief systems that will decide whether or not a relationship is contradictory or affirming. For this reason, it is, in fact, our belief systems that ultimately guide our actions. As far as our actual behavior is concerned, and although it is true that contradiction causes pain and affirmation catalyzes pleasure, we are not driven by the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of pleasure, but rather we are driven by the avoidance of contradiction and the pursuit of affirmation. Again, it is relationally echoed confirmation that creates pleasurable experiences and contradiction that produces painful ones. Pain and pleasure in no way directly cause human behavior, they are but the effects or ultimate result of our existential structure in action.

Love

Theorizing from our knowledge of the way we’re psychologically structured, it is likely that love is that human emotion in which there exists a well-marked real or virtual absence of probable or possible contradiction as well as a high degree of relational coincidence between the loved object and one’s genetic self. Often, as relationships mature and either contradictions appear or one discovers that there is less coincidence between subject and object than once thought, the level or intensity of love will diminish, sometimes disappearing entirely.

Infatuation

Love should not be confused with infatuation. Where love is a feeling characterized by a probable scarcity of contradiction as well as relational coincidence between subject and object, infatuation points to a total lack of probable contradiction as well as an absolute presence of relational coincidence between subject and object. When infatuated, one feels as if the love object were perfect or flawless. Infatuation, however, is usually short-lived as the loved object, being human, will soon reveal shortcomings or some sort of contradictory behavior. Such scenarios hold true in cases where budding or initial love is the subject at hand.

Lasting love

One could speculate that when love seems to last a lifetime, it is because of the amount of time that a subject loves an object and or vice-versa. After all, the longer an object forms an integral part of a subject’s environmental self, the more essential it becomes to that self. In order to maintain the emotion of love, however, time alone is not enough. A specific degree of mutual respect and dependency, as well as a scarcity of contradiction between object and subject, must, as would be expected, also be present.