My working model for relating is that it’s second-order cybernetics. It’s not about the first-order effects of interacting with a person (or other entity) but the second-order of what that does with you.
Sometimes that happens as a downstream effect of a conscious choice but plenty of time there’s not much consciousness about the formation of relational stance.
Yeah to be clear (I should maybe update the post to spell this out better), I think most relating is unconscious or unintentional. But I’ve found something personally enriching about being intentional about it
So this post has maybe 2 main thesee:
1. ‘Relating’ is a thing you do (mostly unintentionally) that is sometimes useful to be able to refer to or think about
2. You might consider relating more intentionally.
I do agree with those thesee. I think if you define relating this way you can’t at the same time define it as being a choice as the choice is a different ontological object. I took two years to try to figure out what the word relationship means and to me there’s now a certain clarity.
Nod. I updated the opening definition of “relate” to include both facets.
This is all a particular lens that was helpful to me that I’ve only shared with a couple people so far, and not sure how many people will relate(har har) to it.
But, fwiw, while I do see a qualitative difference between “chosen relating” and “un-chosen relating”, it doesn’t feel like so big a difference that that they are ontologically distinct.
It’s similar to, if I initially stub my toe and then feel angry at someone who happens to be nearby… and then I reflect a bit and decide that it doesn’t make sense to be angry at them (and instead an angry at the universe, or become tranquil instead of angry, or whatever), my post-reflective is different from my pre-reflective state in some important ways, but they still share major properties of “experiencing emotions.”
I see pre-and-post-reflected relating similarly. (I think reflected-relating is a bit more different from reflexive-relating than pre-and-post-reflected-emotions. But, not much more)
I see a choice as a type of intention. That choice has effects. The process of feeling certain emotions when interacting an entity with whom one relates is a downstream effect from that choice.
If I do believe reporting I start out with the intention: “I will tell the truth”. That’s a choice I’m making.
One effect of that choice is that I will relate a certain way to saying something part of me considers untrue. The downstream effect of the choice is that I will feel tension when saying an untruth.
I do agree that the relating that happens downstream from a conscious choice is of a similar nature then the relating that happens without setting a conscious intention but the relating is still another object then the choice.
My working model for relating is that it’s second-order cybernetics. It’s not about the first-order effects of interacting with a person (or other entity) but the second-order of what that does with you.
Sometimes that happens as a downstream effect of a conscious choice but plenty of time there’s not much consciousness about the formation of relational stance.
Yeah to be clear (I should maybe update the post to spell this out better), I think most relating is unconscious or unintentional. But I’ve found something personally enriching about being intentional about it
So this post has maybe 2 main thesee:
1. ‘Relating’ is a thing you do (mostly unintentionally) that is sometimes useful to be able to refer to or think about
2. You might consider relating more intentionally.
I do agree with those thesee. I think if you define relating this way you can’t at the same time define it as being a choice as the choice is a different ontological object. I took two years to try to figure out what the word relationship means and to me there’s now a certain clarity.
Nod. I updated the opening definition of “relate” to include both facets.
This is all a particular lens that was helpful to me that I’ve only shared with a couple people so far, and not sure how many people will relate (har har) to it.
But, fwiw, while I do see a qualitative difference between “chosen relating” and “un-chosen relating”, it doesn’t feel like so big a difference that that they are ontologically distinct.
It’s similar to, if I initially stub my toe and then feel angry at someone who happens to be nearby… and then I reflect a bit and decide that it doesn’t make sense to be angry at them (and instead an angry at the universe, or become tranquil instead of angry, or whatever), my post-reflective is different from my pre-reflective state in some important ways, but they still share major properties of “experiencing emotions.”
I see pre-and-post-reflected relating similarly. (I think reflected-relating is a bit more different from reflexive-relating than pre-and-post-reflected-emotions. But, not much more)
I see a choice as a type of intention. That choice has effects. The process of feeling certain emotions when interacting an entity with whom one relates is a downstream effect from that choice.
If I do believe reporting I start out with the intention: “I will tell the truth”. That’s a choice I’m making.
One effect of that choice is that I will relate a certain way to saying something part of me considers untrue. The downstream effect of the choice is that I will feel tension when saying an untruth.
I do agree that the relating that happens downstream from a conscious choice is of a similar nature then the relating that happens without setting a conscious intention but the relating is still another object then the choice.
Okay, that makes sense. Do you have a good name for the choice part? (‘Relational choice’ might be fine)