I thought up a hypothetical situation: when you treat one person well, but he doesn’t care, and when you treat him bad, and he treats you bad, what should be the response? I’ve met a person before that told me once that he hates me, but he doesn’t know why. What does being honest to myself mean in this case?
To me, treating someone well allows part of my pride become dependent on the other’s reply. The technical way to treat someone well is to offer them your services, your time, your effort, your relationships or connections, your experiences, your knowledge, and constantly tell them the truth. Furthermore, when telling them your version of the truth, and it happens to conflict with their version, there should be enough respect between each other to discuss and while ideally looking for an even better version of both of our truths, at least progress towards a more irrefutable agreed truth. Furthermore, specify what is agreed and have both understand when/how we have differed.
This is the reason why people set a system of incremental privileges between people outside of their loved ones. This is the reason why people in higher positions of power, but not the highest, act overbearing.
To be honest to myself, I can’t stand when I treat any person well and they hate me. I still don’t know what to do when a person hates me without them knowing why.
In the current job/management hierarchy separated by job titles and salaries, even this seemingly objective judgment blankets invisibly over all human interactions to bring out, even nurture, specific perceptions that are make believe. They only hold true if everyone plays their roles from bottom to top, then the rules of the game are forced into reality. But in a certain light, because all rules that promote any inequality wreaks all balance, the only rules that are real is do unto another as you would do unto yourself, and treat your neighbour as yourself, give as you would like to receive. The consequences of every statement be it a rule reveal whether that rule is best for all, only one best, the rest that is better for some is an optimistically described abusive rule.
And to ascertain the consequences of each rule, you simply live in that environment over some time. By having conversation with the people under those rules, simply note if everyone in that same environment is growing vividly.
My opinion is my dignity gets crushed when I am working to benefit any single person that doesn’t acknowledge my existence, and rather acknowledge how rules or contracts give them personal benefits. It’s when people tacitly and silently accept the benefits I work to give them that I imagine myself pouring my lifeforce into an abyss with no profound meaning in exchange. The distorted perceptions implied by rules and contracts rise to the surface of my consciousness. And that person’s response consequently implies dictator-like characters fuelled by contracts to be that person. And these characters are the worst in human nature; nothing redeems them because they are ideas and purely harmful. It’s like violence: nothing redeems it, it’s worst for all, it violates equality.