We spend years developing ideals which are often shaped by the people who have affected us over the years. I question whether or not there is evolution in that or if we simply use the existence of other people to help define our underdeveloped senses of self. I wonder if the people who find themselves with their happy endings and minimal strife get to that point because they were born into this world knowing who they were.
This may sound contradictory to my firm belief that if you ever stop learning about yourself, you have reached a dead end. It’s not a contradiction per se as much as an expansion. People are dynamic by nature and being that there are countless experiences out there that can shape a person, it’s near to impossible to remain completely static all throughout your life. The people we meet- and either let in, shut out, or even completely ignore- they are all experiences in their own way. There is a fine line separating what is genuine change and the superficial alterations made simply due to the existence of a certain personality come in contact with.
Where is the line between changing and recovering what was lost along the way? Where is the line between a gaping schism in our foundations and what is nothing more than the slow shifting of plates deep below the surface of being? There is a fault line regardless and the slightest quake makes a difference… perhaps there is no definitive line separating the two results of cause and effect but more a matter of when our inner tuning picks up the signals.
Do we use other people to deceive ourselves into believing that something somewhere is shifting? The sad truth is that we just might not be able to tell the difference between sensing a change and wanting it. Our desperate desire for change, evolution and personal enlightenment drive us to see people as tools. Can an outsider really be a true catalyst… or is that just an illusion?