How to deal with inner conflict?

[Nilsi]

As I delve deeper into my unconscious in an effort to understand who I am and what to do with my life, I've encountered increasing conflict within myself. As life progresses and time necessitates decisions and commitments, the once seemingly infinite horizon of possibilities begins to narrow each day.

To navigate these internal landscapes, I create visions for my ideal life and future, striving to represent these in as many distinct modalities as possible. Given the highly visual nature of humans, I mostly focus on visual representation. Recently, I created two dreamboards¹ within a short period. For the first time in this process, my desires have split into two distinct, mutually exclusive visions of life, diverging from their previous amalgamation into perfectly intrinsically consistent visions.

While these dreamboards serve merely as illustrations for my argument and might seem arbitrary, they symbolize the profound conflicts within. We can all agree that any form of representation falls short of capturing the full complexity of reality, but we must work with the tools available. The unconscious mind operates through representations, essentially a conglomerate of unfulfilled wishes. Dreams, perhaps the most vivid example of this phenomenon, occur nightly as the mind processes unconscious desires through the concoction of elaborate and complex visions. Over a long enough timespan, examining one's dreams begins to reveal recurrent elements. Despite their varied forms, these elements represent some core essence. Moreover, a diverse array of recurring dreams dealing with different subjects also emerges. By cataloging these over a significant period, one can create a "library of dreams," or a portfolio of deep desires. Organizing these into clusters by similar subjects and patterns, one discovers distinct groups that address different subjects and core desires, pulling in opposing directions, thus revealing deep-seated irreconcilable conflicts at the heart of the subject.

This deep introspection brings one inevitably to the question: how does one manage these conflicts?

There are numerous potential responses, depending on one's willingness to simplify. I argue that these strategies can be distilled into two primary outlooks: the dialectic and the tragic.

The dialectic approach, largely attributed to Hegel, posits that every desire encounters a diametrically opposed counterforce. Unlike a mere clash of opposing desires, Hegel’s concept involves a dynamic process where contradictions are essential for the evolution of consciousness. This dialectical movement reflects a process of negation and sublation ("Aufhebung"), where conflicting elements are transcended and integrated, leading to a higher state of understanding. Hegel's philosophy, ultimately aimed at achieving absolute knowledge, suggests that such synthesis is not merely a resolution but a progression toward a more comprehensive truth. This provides a theoretical framework for continual growth, although at its core it presents an idealized view of human development, presuming an eventual resolution that may never manifest.

In stark contrast, the tragic vision of life, notably revived by Friedrich Nietzsche from the ancient Greeks, perceives the interplay of forces not as a tension to be resolved but as friction that allows one to forge one's destiny. Nietzsche's thought emphasizes the creation of individual values in the face of life’s inherent absurdities and suffering. In this view, opposing forces are not to be integrated but confronted and overcome, celebrating the will to power and the eternal recurrence as fundamental aspects of existence. The tragic individual embraces its uniqueness, deriving joy from affirming its difference rather than seeking universality. This process involves intense mourning as the individual must relinquish parts of itself—unrealized dreams, unfulfilled desires, and unactualized potential.

Personally, I contend that this tragic way of life represents a more mature approach to life, as it necessitates profound honesty about life's impermanence and one's own finite existence.

[Nilsi]

¹ the following are the said dreamboards; they should serve only to illustrate my point, and I won't engage in any discussions about their subject matter:

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B: 

[NoSelfSelf]

I ate so much meat today so its all cloudy 😁 i got brief point, but whats the conflict in short summary?.. and whats the process to find the deep desire (the dreams?)..

Im drawn to this topic so if i dont get the response ill look it up tommorow..

[mmKay]

Just combine both vision boards , no need to be perfectionistic here. Go with your intuition of what you want to add or remove 

You seem to be a thoughtful person but I feel your use of language is the problem. It's unnecessary complicated , twisted and academic. And this hinders your clarity.

And you mentioned two philosophers known for being needlessly overcomplicated as well

Let me know how you feel about this

Practice journaling in a way a 10 year old would understand it. See if that helps. You have fallen in the trap of glorifying complicated language, when the purpose of language is clear comunication ( in this case, with yourself)

Edited May 2 by mmKay

[Javfly33]

When in conflict chances are is a "mind thing", trust the heart/inner true intellgence more than thought attachment, clarity will come easy then.

[Carl-Richard]

Sorry for being crass, but your writing style is like @Reciprocality but you actually sort of make sense 😆

I don't see what the conflict is really about. Is it about viewing life through a Hegelian lens vs. a Nietzschian lens? Or is it simply about pursuing two different life paths? Because the former doesn't seem like a real issue. You firstly don't choose how you view something, and it's possible to view something in multiple ways. The latter is a more real issue, but that is just "resolved" by trying something out and seeing where it leads. If it doesn't work out, you can just switch.

The problem is looking for an ultimate black-or-white, ride-or-die choice. Life doesn't work like that, and thinking that it works like that is a much bigger conflict. In the words of Sam Hyde (😂), "perfect is the enemy of good". You learn as you go.

You might find out that you'll grow as you're trying the first thing out and that the conflict resolves that way, or you'll just be more certain that the other thing is probably what is truly right for you.

Edited May 11 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

On 2.5.2024 at 4:59 AM, mmKay said:

Just combine both vision boards , no need to be perfectionistic here. Go with your intuition of what you want to add or remove 

You seem to be a thoughtful person but I feel your use of language is the problem. It's unnecessary complicated , twisted and academic. And this hinders your clarity.

And you mentioned two philosophers known for being needlessly overcomplicated as well

Let me know how you feel about this

Practice journaling in a way a 10 year old would understand it. See if that helps. You have fallen in the trap of glorifying complicated language, when the purpose of language is clear comunication ( in this case, with yourself)

This is golden advice and I'm speaking from experience 💯

@Nilsi I can provide some advice about the potential pitfalls of this as well if you decide to try it out.

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see what the conflict is really about. Is it about viewing life through a Hegelian lens vs. a Nietzschian lens?

The premise of my argument is that conflict is intrinsic to the self, and there are various methods for approaching and resolving it; I've detailed two such methods. I don't mean to seem ungrateful, but this forum wouldn't be my first choice if I were earnestly seeking answers about personal issues. The incident I described offered me some insight into a metaphysical aspect of two philosophers with whom I am deeply engaged, and I thought it served well as a means to discuss their ideas.

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You firstly don't choose how you view something, and it's possible to view something in multiple ways. The latter is a more real issue, but that is just "resolved" by trying something out and seeing where it leads. If it doesn't work out, you can just switch.

I claim that you do have a say in how you interpret reality, although it's clear that much of this is beyond your control, as I suggested when discussing the unconscious. Or are you suggesting that agency is altogether illusory?

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You might find out that you'll grow as you're trying the first thing out and that the conflict resolves that way, or you'll just be more certain that the other thing is probably what is truly right for you.

The conflict is perpetual; that is precisely the point. An infinite problem-space exists outside your current identity, and the central question is how you navigate this space. Do you adopt a passive approach, accommodating the unknown without committing to any stance, or do you boldly, perhaps recklessly, stand firm in your beliefs and identity ("ride-or-die" - a lovely description) and push these as far as possible?

You may think you can resolve this situation by projecting these opposing movements into the future, thereby allowing the two aforementioned metaphysical approaches to dynamically interact over time. This projection, in a paradoxically Hegelian manner, attempts to synthesize the contradictions inherent in viewing Nietzsche through the dialectical process. However, in reality, all you can do is enact one of these philosophical stances in the present moment. This begs the question and forces you to answer: which side do you choose?

This conclusion might appear to be just another a priori commitment to a metaphysical argument - specifically Nietzsche's notion of "Eternal Return," which posits that this eternal now is all there ever is, with any choice and identity being created and perpetually reinforced not in some abstract, dialectical future but in the immediate reality. However, my claim is that this is a much more true and robust way of conceptualizing reality and conflict than what Hegel (and by extension, much of the implicit metaphysics in this community) offers.

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is golden advice and I'm speaking from experience 💯

@Nilsi I can provide some advice about the potential pitfalls of this as well if you decide to try it out.

I get it. I'm a salesman and marketing consultant by day, so I understand the power of clear and straightforward communication quite well.

However, I don't believe there is any room for such concerns in philosophy. My motivation is not to persuade you of my argument, but to show you something that deeply engages me - and that, I bet you would agree, is seldom ordinary pragmatic stuff.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

The premise of my argument is that conflict is intrinsic to the self, and there are various methods for approaching and resolving it; I've detailed two such methods. I don't mean to seem ungrateful, but this forum wouldn't be my first choice if I were earnestly seeking answers about personal issues. The incident I described offered me some insight into a metaphysical aspect of two philosophers with whom I am deeply engaged, and I thought it served well as a means to discuss their ideas.

Oh, I must've been mistaken. I thought you were asking for advice.

 

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I claim that you do have a say in how you interpret reality, although it's clear that much of this is beyond your control, as I suggested when discussing the unconscious. Or are you suggesting that agency is altogether illusory?

For example, if I believe somebody is lying to me, I can't make myself not believe that. It's an authentic assessment of what I've observed and what I feel inside.

Now, I can doubt the accuracy of my observations and what I'm feeling, but nevertheless, it's what I believe. In that case, my doubting becomes what I believe. This goes back to how it's not black-and-white. There is constant uncertainty and nuance, but nevertheless, you still have "that view". It's there.

It should be the same for your more abstract ideas as well. In my case, it's my view that you can have multiple ideas but also that you can't choose which of those ideas you find appealing. They either just are or they aren't. So for me, I don't see a big conflict when considering different ideas. I can't make myself see it any other way either. I could imagine how somebody could (or how I could in the future), but it's not the case for me right now.

You can create the outside appearance that you believe something that you don't, but that is indeed lying, grifting, or just confusion and lack of introspection.

 

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

I get it. I'm a salesman and marketing consultant by day, so I understand the power of clear and straightforward communication quite well.

However, I don't believe there is any room for such concerns in philosophy. My motivation is not to persuade you of my argument, but to show you something that deeply engages me - and that, I bet you would agree, is seldom ordinary pragmatic stuff.

Practicing how to spell out your thoughts plainly and simply is highly relevant to philosophical pursuits, just like any other pursuit in your life (they all fit together anyway), because it allows you to refine that sense of knowing what you truly believe. It's trite, but language is a brilliant tool, but it can be misused to create a lot of noise and to deceive, mostly yourself. What you're referring to is poetry.

Edited May 11 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

50 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Now, I can doubt the accuracy of my observations and what I'm feeling, but nevertheless, it's what I believe. In that case, my doubting becomes what I believe. This goes back to how it's not black-and-white. There is constant uncertainty and nuance, but nevertheless, you still have "that view". It's there.

It should be the same for your more abstract ideas as well. In my case, it's my view that you can have multiple ideas but also that you can't choose which of those ideas you find appealing. They either just are or they aren't. So for me, I don't see a big conflict when considering different ideas. I can't make myself see it any other way either. I could imagine how somebody could (or how I could in the future), but it's not the case for me right now.

Let's use a concrete example to make this more tangible. Imagine you are seeing a girl and you really like her. You are happy, perhaps even in love, and your life is going well in other areas as well. Now one day, she comes to you and tells you she is running off to the other side of the world to pursue spirituality and suggests you should join her, assuring that money and other practical matters will be taken care of. You like her a lot, and the idea is somewhat appealing, but you also have goals and plans that require you to maintain your current living situation. THIS IS CONFLICT.

Now, what do you do? Do you double down on your current life trajectory, or on her; or perhaps do you seek some kind of compromise where you can have "the best of both worlds"?

This is perhaps a bit of a dramatic example, but such conflicts arise all the time. It was on this basis that I was constructing my argument.

[Ishanga]

All Conflict is inner Created, You created it, only for the most part Unconsciously, most think there are other forces at play in their lives, mostly it is them living accidentally, this is what being Unconscious means, bring Consciousness into Your Life (being Highly and Intensely Aware) then no more conflict can exist, just situations, accept it as it is, then clarity is there to find a way out of it if that is what You want to do...

[hyruga]

 

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Let's use a concrete example to make this more tangible. Imagine you are seeing a girl and you really like her. You are happy, perhaps even in love, and your life is going well in other areas as well. Now one day, she comes to you and tells you she is running off to the other side of the world to pursue spirituality and suggests you should join her, assuring that money and other practical matters will be taken care of. You like her a lot, and the idea is somewhat appealing, but you also have goals and plans that require you to maintain your current living situation. THIS IS CONFLICT.

Now, what do you do? Do you double down on your current life trajectory, or on her; or perhaps do you seek some kind of compromise where you can have "the best of both worlds"?

This is perhaps a bit of a dramatic example, but such conflicts arise all the time. It was on this basis that I was constructing my argument.

There will always be conflict unless you can make a decision and transcend yourself to another level. 

For example, you may have a goal to earn let's say 10 million. However, a girl you like came along said she wants to travel widely or do spirituality. Or you have another goal which is to build more schools and help more people etc. Then you have to decide whether you want to do your first goal or second goal or to continue things with her or continue your own path. 

Suppose you have already 4 million to date, you may made the decision that this is enough. You can enjoy the world with her.  But even after making the decision, you may find yourself having inner conflicts again so you have to ask yourself again and again. Is it about caring less for self and caring more for her or others?

There's no right or wrong. It's your personal choice in the end.