A compromise between two parties is usually seen as a way to settle a dispute by mutual concession.
It is often used as means to conclude negotiations, settle arguments or simply getting closer towards a common purpose in human interactions. That is, compromise can and is even Recommended to be used in material transactions of any kind.
What I want to explore is the compromise in romantic relationships.
I start by saying there is no such thing, or, even worse, in case there is, it does more long-term damage than anything else (besides crucial faults).
Thing is, a compromise can only renouncing a part of the self in order to please the other. What's in this? Well, in order to reach common ground, each partner has to give up something: this something is a a piece of the self - a sentiment, a desire, a personal secret, a habit - which is very personal and an integrative part of who they are. So far, so good. Each gave up a bit and a common decision has been reached. This something, be it big or small (according to the value assigned by their owner) is seen as a piece that it's being traded against the partners renouncement, in order to reach an understanding.
The problem resides in the fact that these things can not be measured. With the passing of time, they can (an usually do) can change their value.
Even worse, it will be stuck only to be pulled out whenever future dispute will arise, and that would be the time for retribution. The former compromise would only build up frustration and tension within each individual to the extent that a short term resolution turns out into a long term damage to the relationship. Each part feels they gave more that was necessary without getting the proper acknowledgement and appreciation.
This, only because compromise only comes into play when there is a power struggle within the couple. Were it not the case, there would be no case of such fragmented negotiations. Proper collaboration in the couple would lead to simply complying with each other's needs and act accordingly without feelings of loss or advantage.
The main reason behind is that people are weak. They are not able to embrace the fact that their partner is an individual with different needs, these need not being necessarily a nuisance for the relationship, but a reality that needs to be accepted as is and gotten the best of it. In turn, one's insecurity and fear are more powerful then the ability to see the truth and adapt to it. Hence, taking them out on a partner creates a trap which not only tries to limit personal freedom for the other, but for themselves as well.
#currentsituation
The generally accepted definition of Karma is (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this (and previous states of) existence, viewed as deciding factors for their fate in future existences, or simply put - good or bad luck, viewed as resulting from one's actions.
In other words, careful what you do, because it will be returned to you later on in some other form. So far, so good.
Only, some thinkers went even further and merged the karmic principle with physics, more precisely with a perverted Newton's third law of motion, which, in short, states that for every action there's an equal reaction. Now, physics laws apply to (surprise!?) physics, no to fate, no to predicting future and they have nothing to do at all with human psyche and interactions (where psychology or sociology may come into play).
I beg to differ: Karma, seen as a principle of retribution of one's actions according to their gravity, may be ignored completely. Since we have no idea why we are born at a specific time, in a specific place, to specific environment, we can't conclude whether our previous live was full of good or bad deeds. At the same time, we shouldn't be bothered with the next our actions' effects impacting our next reincarnation, because we'll have no recollection of what we did. That is in case we ignore some irrational fear that actions in this life would affect the other (hypothetical) life.
Next, to rely on the principle of action - reaction as an explanation for 'do good unto others and ye shalt be redeemed in this life or the next one' as well as for 'wrongdoers always get their punishment sooner or later' would be a completely hazardous assumption. Yet the majority do so. Why is that? Fear of punishment? Consciousness? A sense of justice? Self-preservation?
In this case, a major role is played by coincidence. The human mind is subjected to creating order even where can be no such thing. As a result, whenever one's good or evil doing may sometimes be followed by another happening which can be construed as a reaction to the previous action. Thus, although whatever happened is pure coincidence, it can be interpreted as a consequence of one's previous action. The mind puts to good use its sense of order and constructs the action-reaction principle. Furthermore, based on several coincidences, the mind creates a pattern, completely empirically. (This is why karma is no science, it's a belief). This pattern is not only used to explain actions, but also to force future actions (e.g. I know that if I do something evil, I shall be punished by the Universe). In this case, regardless of the moral polarity of one's actions, the mind will seek to discover or even create the desired pattern, mostly unconsciously. We become trapped within our own minds.
No matter which principle one adheres to, both Karma and the action/reaction simply take away free will and personal freedom. Actually, they don't. We do that. We choose to do things and believe in theories. Even this script here is no more than a theory. Plausible? Maybe. Applicable with some success? Perhaps.
Most importantly, wrongdoers do not get punished by some third party force. Other individuals simply act as agents of vengeance against the aforementioned wrongdoers.
However, the punishment itself means not some sort of retribution for the deed itself.
Punishment acts as a preventive agent, for the person in case, as well as for other. Do this (again) and you will receive this. The same goes for the good deeds. However, there is no evidence of direct connections between a bad deed and retribution, neither for a good thing being rewarded by means of fate or action of the universe.
On the other hand, they say good deeds do attract rewards or other good deeds in return. It's merely the coincidence and one's inclination to find order in some random line of acts what causes people to believe such a thing. Add some optimism (which is some sort of subjectivity after all) and there you have it: karma at its finest, if you choose to believe in it.
#currentsituation
