The "Not-Okay" Paradigm -- How Fault Became Default

(Background music)

Have you ever woken up one morning, hoping for a good day, only to be confronted by forces beyond your control, who are allegedly eager to turn your smile upside down? Have you ever looked up the news of today, hoping to be informed of one or two positive, encouraging messages, only to be bombarded by a series of depressing, pessimistic news one after the other, with no hope of anything different the next day, or the day after that?

All you, can do at times, is either sit and endure the suffering, or "think positively" in a world that is arguably far from positive, at least in the eyes of this sensitive person. Or, of course, in many, many issues, from living expanse, political instability, and so on. Flaws and problems are usually not seen as opportunities for growth, let alone something to be proud of, but as concepts that could easily cripple one's spirits.

All of this can be described as the "Not-Okay Paradigm", AKA, the helpless belief that reality is, by definition, a pessimistic place of some sort—cold, alienating, repressing, faulty, and so forth—whereas positivity, on the other hand, is something that we ought to actively pursue, not something that already exists to the "naked" eye.

Positivity/happiness can be seen as fleeting. Many of you might know this much. A concept that isn't easy to both attain and recreate once more once its lost. Such is the reality of beings, such as myself, that either naturally or actively pursue focusing on what is not okay, rather on what's okay.

To make philosophy more relevant, it is imperative that I focus specifically on what's not okay, in order to shed some of my insights on the subjects I cover. Hopefully I would be able to solve them as well, from a logical standpoint. However, please note that I do it on purpose, and do not mind being largely a pessimist. Emotions do not matter to me as much as they used to be, and I lost much of them regardless. I am not to be seen as similar to those who are involuntarily pessimist, and actively want to be happy.

It's just agony to me.

The reason I like to be alone so much and to write about it is that people don't seem to care about the personal aspect of a person; about their feelings, about their honest opinions. It is always about the whatever task at hand, while the person is merely a representative of something else as in the case of salarymen, and not an entity by itself. The personal aspect at large seems either unwanted or even despised, as long as it deviates from the norms, as in the case of racism or people who are merely seen as arrogant.

This in theory show how anti-social our civilization has become -- We don't care about your feelings, about whether you're okay or not -- as long as you do what WE want in the way and form WE wish you to do, you will be either praised or left alone unbothered by our harassment. This makes people stressed to conform and follow the orthodox ways of society.

All of this brings me to the question I've been asking for many years: why should one love or at least want to be in the External World, while it can be so eager not only to tell them that they are not okay, but also rarely considers that the the individual is a human being with emotions, desires, a voice to be heard? I also have similar questions of that kind.

Slowly I became dead inside just to survive in such a harsh world better.

For many, we are but units that are labeled under different categories, and almost nothing beyond that. The personal aspect is cringe; the distress, annoying; the emotionality, uncalled for; and the sensitivity, laughable.

Rare seem to be the people who look at the person as more than a unit of a certain functionality and a certain competence to fulfilling it. Not as a doer, but as a being that exists beyond the sum of their deeds. The people who are actually interested in the personal wellbeing of a person even if they are not their friends -- strangers, even; the commenters who consider the possibility that their comment can cause more harm than good, with the obvious potential to reduce it; and the list goes on.

Contrary to popular belief, humanity does not appear to be an inherent trait within every person, even though its very name assumes it is.

I don't mind anymore to live in the paradigm/world view that says that the world is by nature not okay. I used to want to live in an okay world, even if far from perfect, where I would feel serene if not happy; A world of color that has a sense of general positivity; a world where someone's suicide would actually matter and not be ignored as a common detail that regularly occurs like the weather.

That was my desire until I realized that, as long as I want that, I will unnecessarily suffer. And I only need suffering that would teach me, make me stronger, and help me work. You know, practical agony. Agony for me to endure, and for you, my readers, to learn from.

The world can be a happier place to live in, for most if not all of us, but it is just we that make it be less than colorful; less of what it could've become. However, we may be busy remaining in a state of submissive apathy. This desire isn't unrealistic, but on the grand scheme of things, as long as we will disregard others as we currently do, the possibility of making the world a better place to live in, shall remain too impractical. The alienation can be fought like it fights some of our mental condition.

I don't know if this article will make a change, but until then, I prefer to partially abstain from this world, in hopes of a more productive life, and a less traumatized self. It seems that there has to always be an approved "way" to be, to exist, in order to get along with the world, even if the other "ways" deserve legitimacy too. My partial abstinence is one of those ways; a defying way -- one that defies the common belief that the world is okay as it is.

But no, traumatizing each other so naturally is not okay.