Ah, see now it seems to me that you're confusing 'interdependence' with 'dependency'. Not the same thing at all. The idea that "we look after each other" meaning I EARN my entitlement to be helped BY helping others in my turn, is quite different from the passive idea of entitlement to be looked after for nothing. You're talking about the 'all rights, no responsibilities' mentality, which I don't condone.At its worst, independence fosters a survival mentality, like that of a person on a deserted island. This mentality is closer to animal than human, which definitely makes it less conducive to personal growth. Interdependence, at its worst, manifests as a sense of entitlement and inability to act unilaterally. Think of people who live on welfare and refuse to find a job (not the ones who can't, the ones who don't try), and of the U.S. Congress.
Can I post that on the D&D forum for a TN definition?My belief is that you should be independent in some aspects, and interdependent in others. I think that a person should define themselves independently, so that they don't forget who they are when interacting with others, or allow those others to redefine them in a way that contradicts their nature. You should (ideally) also be willing to act on your own ideas and beliefs, rather than being bound by what others think or feel is right. However, you should be willing to listen to what others have to say, and evaluate their advice before deciding if it relates to you or not. You should also try to avoid harming others if you can, even helping them if doing so doesn't require you to go too far out of your way. You should also try to be understanding of where others are coming from, and consider their interests when dealing with them.
I can sorta relate to it, except that I have to add in there that 'defining yourself independently' carries with it the risk of delusion... if that definition isn't to at least some extent influenced by the responses in external reality of others to that 'self' that you are. People are prone to hearing what they want to hear and 'evaluating their advice before deciding if it relates to you or not', only to usually come to the conclusion that it doesn't, if it's something they don't like (but could well be true).
Those disadvantages aren't something I experience... the only disadvantage I can think of really is just that it means putting up with people's bad sides as well as their good, and people can be a REAL pain in the ass sometimes!The advantages of independence are flexibility and the ability to change course more quickly. The disadvantages are that there's no support, and few opportunities for growth. The advantages of interdependence are a kind of stability created by the web of interrelationships, and an atmosphere that creates more opportunity in general. The disadvantages are that it becomes a lot harder to adapt to things, and that movement only happens with consensus, which can be hard to achieve.
Yeah, all makes perfect sense. But what I was getting at was that we're social animals by nature, and 99% of humans aren't capable of obtaining everything they need to remain physically and mentally healthy whilst living completely alone, but I see a worrying tendency, especially in urban culture, to believe that this is possible and even desirable, as more and more people are living alone and less and less people are talking to their neighbours. There is a noticeable peak of people seeking help with isolation related depression in Western cities, where individualist, independent culture prevails; the problem is far less pronounced in rural communities... and in my capacity as a chaplain I do get far more instances of people who have spiralled themselves out of control with self-doubt, existential angst and all sorts of other things that have simply lost their perspective to this person because they've not been around other people enough to keep the perspective healthy - get it ALL the time in towns, but very rarely in the countryside.Does that make sense?
(wish I could quote sources for that, but I don't have them to hand! It was probably New Scientist, but I can't remember which issue!)