A wise man once said... "Before you proverb, you need clearance from the proverb police"...
For me, associating concepts equals defining boundaries. I learn about counseling theories, and look inward. I find a rebellious child, a free child, a powerless child, and an adaptive child. These children all live in harmony, and under surveillance. My task today is to decipher and ponder the similarities and differences between my free child ego state and my rebellious child ego state; nonetheless, in a public forum. Rebellion comes to my mind first. The mere fact that rebellious child ego state exists in me must mean that there is an injustice occurring, something unfair. If I rebel against this injustice, justice will occur: this is my simple process. Step two: I am free if I rebel. But am I?
If rebellion equals freedom in my mind, does that mean I am not free if I do not rebel against something, someone, some idea? My desire is to be free. Free from what, though?
My desire is to be free from... injustice, pain, hurt, suffering... is this realistic, though? These things exist, whether or not I desire them to or not. If it is this desire to be free from them that ironically creates them, could not a lack of desire make them disappear for me?
So what I've written about is a rebellion in itself, a rebellion from rebelling. I am certainly perceiving myself differently than others perceive me. So what does it matter if I perceive myself as a rebel. What if I were to perceive myself as free, free from the confines of rebellion... I like the sound of that.
Ooh, I like your concluding phrase, "free from the confines of rebellion." Although not completely related to the transactional analysis theme of your post, I find that some "rebels" are confining themselves to playing the rebellious role. They view life as a dichotomous choice between conformity and rebellion. I like to live in the grey.
ReplyDelete