Choice “Paralysis“
A choice implies that there is an alternative, and with every alternative comes the weight of consequences, perceived or real.
You speak of a ‘neutral’ stand, but let’s investigate what that really means. In reality, the idea of a neutral stance is a contradiction in terms. The very act of choosing neutrality is in itself a choice, made in opposition to other possible choices. So, the notion of being ‘neutral’ is inherently paradoxical because it cannot exist without the conditions that make it a choice to begin with.
For example, When you agree to a certain dosage of medication, you exercise control by making an informed decision. However, you also surrender control to the effects of that dosage, which may not be entirely predictable. This brings emotional complexity into play: the comfort of taking action (choosing the dosage) juxtaposed against the uncertainty of outcome. When we agree to disagree, we are on the contrary acknowledging that a middle ground is unreachable, yet we’re finding a sort of middle ground in that very acknowledgment. The challenge lies in our psychological need for validation and agreement, which often feels at odds with the more rational understanding that it’s perfectly okay for different viewpoints to coexist. We often fail to agree to disagree because our conditionings, our egos, don’t allow us to let go without a ‘win’ or a ‘loss.’
Every choice, by definition, is a rejection of its alternative. Therefore, choices are always relative, biased, and limited by the options that exist. In that sense, a choice cannot be independent because it is defined by the conditions that make it a choice. The idea of a ‘choice’ presupposes the existence of an alternative, of a comparison. In a context where there is only one thing that exists independently, the notion of ‘choice’ would be meaningless because there would be nothing to choose from. Therefore, it wouldn’t be a choice; it would simply be a state of being. The paradox exists because we try to define and understand choice within the limited framework of language and duality. However, once you recognize that the very nature of choice is paradoxical and conditional, and you embrace that paradox rather than trying to resolve it, you arrive at a sort of meta-clarity. This does not mean you’ve resolved the paradox; it simply means you’ve stepped outside of it. You’ve transcended the limitations that come with the dualistic thinking of ‘this or that,’ ‘yes or no,’ ‘neutral or biased.’
Choices are never made in emotional vacuums. They are laden with expectations, fears, and desires that stem from our past experiences, conditionings, and inherent personality traits. Even the seemingly most “logical” choice is often deeply influenced by emotions we may not even be fully aware of. The emotional charge of expectations is often the heaviest. When we make a choice, it is often governed by what we expect the outcome will bring us—pleasure, validation, success, or the avoidance of pain and conflict. The emotion here is one of anticipation, coupled with anxiety about whether our expectations will be met.
Then there’s desire, an emotion that often masquerades as need. The choices we make based on desire are emotionally charged with hopes for fulfillment, achievement, or recognition. But desire is a double-edged sword: while it motivates us, it also sets us up for disappointment if things don’t go as planned.
Even when we think we are making a “neutral” choice, what we are often trying to do is distance ourselves emotionally from the implications of the decision. We might say it’s “purely logical,” but the underlying emotion is often one of self-preservation—we wish to remain unscathed by the emotional weight that comes with making a more obviously partial choice.
One reason choices are emotionally charged is that they give us the illusion of control. Making a decision allows us to feel like we have some say over our fate. However, this control is always somewhat illusory. Life’s unpredictability ensures that our choices, no matter how well-considered, often have unexpected outcomes. The realization that our control is limited can bring up a host of emotions like helplessness or existential dread. Every choice we make, big or small, adds a brick to the edifice of our self-identity. We look for validation through our choices; when they lead to desired outcomes, it reinforces our sense of self-worth. When they don’t, it challenges our self-image and can lead to emotions like self-doubt, shame, or regret.
Our choices also affect how we are viewed by others, adding another layer of emotional complexity. Sometimes we make choices that conform to societal norms or expectations to avoid judgment or gain approval. The emotions at play here are often related to a fear of rejection or a need for social cohesion. At other times, we may make choices that go against the grain, driven by a desire for individuality or authenticity. This can lead to a complicated cocktail of pride, liberation, but also potential loneliness.
When it comes to seemingly paradoxical choices—like choosing wisdom over a loved one or maintaining a “neutral” stance—the emotional texture becomes even more intricate. For instance, choosing wisdom over a loved one might be a defense mechanism to protect oneself from future emotional pain, yet it can also lead to immediate emotional pain due to the distancing from the loved one. Here, both foresight and dread, love and rationality, are locked in an emotional tussle.
In cases where we choose to be “neutral,” what we are really doing is choosing not to engage emotionally in a way that makes us vulnerable. We might convince ourselves that we’re staying above the fray, but deep down, the need to protect ourselves emotionally is dictating that ‘neutral’ choice. The emotion behind neutrality is often a fear of emotional engagement, wrapped up in a protective layer of rationality. Ultimately, emotional maturity plays a large role in how we navigate the sea of choices and their associated feelings. Being aware of our emotional drivers allows us to make more ‘informed’ choices, even if that information is coming from within ourselves. This kind of self-awareness can temper the more reactive emotions like fear and desire and allow room for more nuanced feelings like contentment, acceptance, and genuine love to inform our decisions.
Choice is often seen as liberating, an act of free will that puts us in the driver’s seat of our destiny. However, with every choice we make, we also close off other possibilities, limiting ourselves in certain ways. The emotional paradox here is the simultaneous existence of freedom and constraint within the same action. We may feel exuberant for choosing a particular path, but there can be a latent sadness or anxiety about the paths left unexplored.
While choices often feel monumental in the moment, their impact can wane over time, sometimes even reversing in significance. What seemed like a terrible choice in the past may later appear wise, or vice versa. This fluidity can generate complex emotions, such as regret for past choices or anxiety about the unpredictability of future choices and their unforeseeable emotional implications.
Ultimately, where every action presents us with a choice and counter choices, we sometimes find ourselves paralyzed, suspended in a moment of indecision. Yet, this paralysis isn’t a dead end; it’s a pause, a sacred space that invites us to reflect, to feel, and to become keenly aware of our humanity.
What if we reframe this so-called “choice paralysis” not as a dilemma but as a moment of pause in the great narrative of our lives? It becomes not a prison, but a platform; not a quagmire, but a quest. In this paused state, we are philosophers, artists, and explorers of the inner cosmos. We grapple not just with options but with identities, not merely with pros and cons but with hopes and fears, love and loss.
In this pause, we are not frozen; we are fervently alive. We are composing in our minds the symphony of our future, writing the next act of our life’s drama, sculpting the clay of our becoming.
And when the pause lifts—as it always does—we make a choice, yes, but we also do something more profound: we embrace our capacity to choose, even when the choices are hard, even when the path is foggy. For it’s in the wrestling with choices that we come to know who we truly are.
So, the next time you find yourself in the clutches of choice paralysis, remember: you are standing at the confluence of many rivers, each leading to a different ocean but all part of the same Earth. And it’s okay to stand there for a while, to feel the currents, to listen to their distinct murmurs, before stepping into the stream that will carry you to your next adventure.
And so, we are forever navigating, forever choosing. Not in search of resolution, but in pursuit of growth. In the end, it’s not about making the perfect choice, but about making our choices perfect us.
Possessive possessions
As human beings, our relationship with possessions is multi-faceted and complex, steeped in a variety of psychological, sociological, and cultural influences. Why do we cherish and cling to material objects? How do these objects gain such profound significance in our lives that their loss can trigger profound distress?
The roots of possessiveness can be traced back to our earliest stages of development. Attachment theory, proposed by psychologist John Bowlby, suggests that as infants, we form attachments to our caregivers, perceiving them as a source of security. Objects, such as a favourite blanket or toy, can also become “attachment objects,” imbued with emotional significance and seen as sources of comfort and safety.
As we grow older, this tendency to form attachments does not diminish but simply evolves. We begin to assign emotional significance to a wider range of objects: a cherished book, a childhood home, a prized car, an heirloom passed down through generations. These objects are no longer just inanimate items; they become extensions of our identity, symbolic representations of our personal history, achievements, relationships, and aspirations.
These possessions reflect who we are, who we have been, and who we aspire to be. They’re a reflection of our interests, experiences, values, and dreams. A stamp collection is not just a bunch of stamps; it’s a testament to a person’s love for history and travel. A guitar is not just an instrument; it’s an emblem of someone’s passion for music and creativity.
However, our deep emotional attachment to our possessions has a flip side: the fear of losing them. The possibility of someone taking away our prized possessions triggers a fear of losing a part of ourselves, of our identities being eroded. This fear is the seed of possessiveness. We resist anyone interfering with our possessions, seeing such interference as an intrusion into our personal domain, a threat to our sense of self.
Our possessions also offer us a sense of control in a world often marked by uncertainty and unpredictability. In a life full of variables beyond our control, our possessions are something we can manage, organize, and control. This perceived control can offer us comfort, helping us navigate the unpredictability of life.
This dynamic of possession and control extends to our relationships as well. We might view our partners, friends, or family members as ‘ours,’ a part of our identity. In healthy relationships, this feeling manifests as a deep sense of connection and commitment. However, when driven by insecurity or fear of loss, it can devolve into possessiveness, stifling the other person’s freedom and autonomy.
Ironically, the attachment to possessions can create both a sense of fullness and emptiness. Fullness, because these objects can offer comfort, joy, and a sense of identity. Emptiness, because possessions, being impermanent, can be lost, damaged, or taken away. We might also feel empty when we realize that possessions, while they can offer temporary happiness, cannot provide the deep, lasting fulfillment we ultimately seek.
In this journey of understanding possessions, it’s critical to consider another aspect, the societal and cultural influences that shape our attitudes towards ownership and possession. Our societies, through advertising, media, and peer pressure, often promote materialism and the idea that acquiring possessions is a path to happiness and success. We’re constantly bombarded with messages that equate possessions with personal worth and social status. This reinforces our attachment to material objects, making them seem even more essential to our identities and well-being.
Take, for example, the car someone drives. It’s more than just a vehicle for transportation; it’s often seen as a status symbol, an outward sign of wealth and success. We assign value to the person based on the value of their car. This societal norm can significantly reinforce our desire to possess and protect our belongings, linking them directly to our self-worth and societal standing.
However, this attachment can lead us into a cycle of endless striving, where we’re constantly seeking the next thing to acquire, hoping it will bring us the satisfaction we crave. But as we’ve often seen, this satisfaction is usually temporary. The excitement of a new purchase eventually fades, and we’re left seeking the next thing, caught in an endless cycle of desire and dissatisfaction.
This cycle of possession and dissatisfaction is also reflected in our relationships. In an attempt to find security and happiness, we may seek to ‘possess’ people, to make them ‘ours.’ This can manifest in various ways, from the relatively benign (e.g., wanting to spend lots of time with a loved one) to the more harmful (e.g., trying to control a partner’s behavior or friendships).
When we treat people as possessions, we run into two main problems. First, people are autonomous beings with their own desires and needs, not objects to be owned or controlled. Trying to ‘possess’ a person invariably leads to conflict and harm. Second, like with material possessions, the security and happiness we seek in ‘possessing’ others are elusive. People change, relationships end, and the sense of security we hoped to find proves fleeting.
The idea of possession also often extends to the intangible elements of our lives, such as ideas, beliefs, and ideologies. These can also become ‘possessions’ we fiercely cling to and defend. For instance, political, religious, or philosophical beliefs often become integral parts of our identity. Just as with material possessions, we can react negatively if these beliefs are challenged, seeing such challenges as attacks on ourselves.
One reason we attach so deeply to these kinds of possessions is that they help to structure our understanding of the world. They provide a framework that makes sense of our experiences, giving us a sense of control and predictability. Therefore, when these beliefs are threatened, it can feel as though our whole understanding of the world is under threat, triggering a defensive reaction.
However, just as with physical possessions, this attachment can lead to problems. When we’re so deeply invested in a particular belief or ideology, it can close our minds to new ideas and perspectives. We can become rigid and inflexible, unable to adapt to new information or changing circumstances.
This rigidity can also lead to conflict with others who hold different beliefs. When our identities are so tied up with our beliefs, it can be challenging to engage in open, respectful dialogue with those who see the world differently. Instead, we may feel threatened by these differing viewpoints and respond with hostility.
Yet, one might ask, how can we not hold onto beliefs? Aren’t they necessary for making sense of the world? While it’s true that beliefs play a crucial role in our understanding of the world, the problem arises when we cling to them rigidly, refusing to consider alternative viewpoints or update our beliefs in the light of new information.
Just as we can enjoy material possessions without being attached to them, we can hold beliefs without being enslaved by them. This requires a certain level of open-mindedness, a willingness to question our beliefs and consider new ideas. It also requires a level of humility, an acknowledgment that our understanding of the world is always limited and imperfect.
By developing this kind of flexible, open-minded approach to our beliefs, we can avoid much of the conflict and suffering that comes with rigid attachment. We can engage more productively with those who hold different views, seeing these interactions not as threats, but as opportunities for learning and growth.
The concept of possessions, whether tangible or intangible, thus challenges us to reassess our relationship with the world around us. While possessions can provide a sense of security and identity, our attachment to them can also lead to suffering and conflict.
Abhishek Fanse 