Thoughts on Openness

[cjsmith]

Something I'll call "openness", the willingness to share of oneself with others....

Somewhere deep in my psyche, I find I respect those people who are open with others unilaterally: the ones who will, for example, admit to doubts in front of a friend who would never do the same.

Granted, there are limits. The Japanese have a concept for some sort of parity -- appropriateness -- in the amount of personal disclosure. I forget the name. It means don't tell your life troubles to the bank clerk, and don't profess undying love on the first date. I understand Americans are less conscious of this, but most still follow it somewhat.

Still, the willingness to share of oneself, from the heart, even when nothing comes back... that bespeaks a level of comfort with oneself, a level of self-acceptance, that I admire. It even shows a certain amount of acceptance of the other person exactly as he is, closed and untrusting as he might be at that moment.

That's one side of me. I admire this.

Then there's the side saying "you fool, don't ever open up first, because it gives a potential weapon to a potential enemy." There is some truth in that also. There's always the chance the other person will have some need to lash out or to quietly reassure himself of his own superiority (both of which could damage the friendship). It could even be argued that the less open that person is, the less self-accepting he is likely to be, and the less self-accepting he is, the more those needs might arise!

Still, I hope someday to get to the point where I'd be able to share my innermost hopes and fears and doubts with a friend who was interested but was unable to share the same in return. Maybe I wouldn't always do it, but I'd be able.

That's a symptom. What it requires is what I'm really searching for: self-acceptance.

Comments

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

I wish you very well, if that's what you want. But remember, a lack of openness doesn't necessarily mean a lack of self-acceptance. There are those of us who have found a huge measure of self-acceptance and still remain closed. Not dishonest - that's a different animal. Just closed. Perhaps the difference is that being closed becomes a choice rather than an imperative?

[datagoddess.livejournal.com]

But, Kathy, in the context I read this in, I don't think you're closed. I think you're highly selective about who you share yourself with, but I don't consider that closed. I consider that discriminating (or picky ;-)

To me, being closed is more how much of yourself you let anyone see. I know CJ gave an example of sharing more than someone is comfortable doing with her, but I see it also as being able to be open with yourself.

*shrug* I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time ;-)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Hrm, good food for thought. So far, I tend to see my own closedness as a lack of self-acceptance and/or a lack of acceptance of the person to whom I'm (not) talking. It's quite possible that even were I incredibly self-accepting, I still wouldn't be incredibly open. (After all, for one thing, some people aren't worthy of trust, and there's no reason that even the most self-accepting person would be unable to make that distinction.) All I know is that these are some of the reasons, right now, why I have trouble being more open.

Like computerchix, I don't see you as closed. Odd, that; I know you very little, so far, so it's odd that I should have such a guess.