added content

3 files changed, 62 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2df53ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/_index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+title: interpersonal
+weight: 20
+bookCollapseSection: true
+---
diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fbb8d48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/abilities.md
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: the abilities of humans
+weight: 100
+---
+
+## free body
+If one is to imagine an individual, possessing free will, alone, one can think of how said individual might operate, and what abilities the individual might have. 
+
+It is obvious that if this individual is alone, then they have a few abilities, or capacities; they have the capacity to exist (i.e. to be alive), they have the capacity to move, and they have the capacity to use their environment to their advantage. 
+
+These, one might claim to be "rights" or "liberties", granted by a higher authority such as a deity, or nature itself, or maybe derived from logic, but they are merely the consequences of existence, presupposing, as always, the existence of free will. Insofar as a person exists, they have these capacities and might choose to use them, along with their skills, acquired or otherwise, to improve their life.
+
+## effective potentials
+The moment that another human, or any other being exists, there is a effective, implicit interaction between the two which limits this freedom. Suddenly there is a question of "am I allowed to go there?", or "If I approach this other entity, how will it react to my action?". All of these hold, both in the frame of cooperation, either in sharing a common space, commonly available food, etc, or in the frame of antagonization, perhaps for the same resources. This simple effect acts as a restrictive force is society, and in this way one can see that even the smallest collection of humans can never be comprised of truly free individuals, nor can this society itself be truly free.
+
+Once more than two individuals coexist, there are more interactions, which introduce further restrictions on the capacities of the individuals to act on their own volition, and at some point there is a shift of focus from the actions of the individual on others, to the actions of others on the individual.
+
+Truly, the complexity of large societies does not allow each person to consider what is of the others, in order to restrict himself, but it pushes the person to consider what is their own, so they may restrict the others. This way, the metaphysical entity that is society, gains the ability to define the liberties of the individual, and set a mode of operations for the members of said society which diverges from the notion of "What is not forbidden is permitted" and converges to the notion of "What is not permitted is forbidden". Under this scope, the larger the society, the more imposing and authoritative it becomes, not out of any amlice, but out of necessity.
+
+
diff --git a/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..67faa4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/theses/metaphysical/interpersonal/self-made-hell.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: self-made hell
+weight: 20
+---
+
+A couple of friends and I know a couple of other people, with whom they used to hang out, that loved to complain about their lives.
+
+They themselves were perfect. They did no wrong, they told no lie, they did their work as they should, they loved correctly; the only problem was other people, who used and abused them to their detriment, and who wouldn't understand the inconvinience or annoyance, or difficulty that they caused to our acquaintances' lives. 
+
+Every so often, they would drop by, meet up with us and complain about how unbearable their life was, because of the other people. At some point one of them told us how they accidentally mistreated one of their coworkers and how now their coworker mistreated them back; I asked if they apologised, and their response was somethin akin to "No, and I don't plan to, because she has been annoying to me from the beginning."
+
+Nevermind the fact that it's not a competition of who mistreated who first, this anger that arose, and the refusal to apologise, as well as the ensuing rant, reminded me of an anecdote that exists in Orthodoxy.
+
+> One day, an old man showed up to a monastery. He approached a monk and started crying.  
+> "I cannot be saved. What I have done is unforgivable. I am eternally damned for what I have done."  
+> The monk asked what the sin was and tried to explain to him that nothing is unforgivable, and that everything can be forgiven.  
+> "It doesn't matter what I did, it's unforgivable, there is no way for me to be saved."  
+> This went on for a couple of days; the man would show up, cry about his unforgivable sin, and leave.  
+> One night the monk prayed for guidance on what to do, and an angel appeared before him.  
+> "This old man is Satan. He will come to you again tomorrow. Tell him that he has to ask for forgiveness."  
+> As the angel foretold, the next day the old man showed up once again at the monastery crying about his misfortune.  
+> "Have you tried asking God for forgiveness?", the monk asked.  
+> "ASK FOR FORGIVENESS? WHY SHOULD I ASK FOR FORGIVENESS? HE SHOULD APOLOGISE INSTEAD!" the old man shouted and left.  
+
+There are two layers to this story, as there are also two layers in understanding what our friend, as well as other people that behave in the same way, go through.
+
+The first and simplest layer is egoism. The person refuses to apologise out of pride; must like the devil refuses to apologise for his hubris, so do these people refuse to apologise until apologised to first. 
+
+To their understanding, they are not at wrong. The other person has clearly mistreated them, and their "tantrum" is a result of built up oppression, so it is justified and moral, and hence they refuse to apologise. At least that's their self-justification for acting as they did.
+
+The second layer is a lack of self-realisation. To explain what I mean, let's go back to the friend who was complaining about life. After asking them if they apologised and the aforementioned refusal, in order to cope with the idea that they are not in the wrong, they started explaining all the ways that the other person had mistreated them.
+
+What became obvious to me however, was that it was a self-imposed mistreatment. The person was rambling on about how they presented themselves as a person to be relied upon, only to complain about how the other person was relying upon them. They didn't set or show or communicate any boundaries, yet they were complaining that nobody respected them. Not only that, but their refusal to communicate any boundaries reinforced the other person's behaviour. Assuming that the other person didn't want to take advantage of them, they wouldn't know that they were, and this lack of negative reaction built an implied dependence.
+
+In a sense, just like the devil, they were in a hell of their own making. They deserve to be there, not because they are evil (nobody is evil, not even the devil), but because they refuse to acknowledge their contribution to their situation. They created the hell they are in, and rather than make any attempt to escape it, they yell about how much it burns.
+
+Most people will be this person unwillingly at least once in their lives. I have been this person, some of my friends have been this person; everybody can be saved from hell as long as they want to and try to. It takes effort, and faith, but it's always a choice.