Privacy or company?

[blazeofglory]

It is hard to think which is the right course. I live in a house and have given a flat for rent to tenants. We have a common door, corridor both my family and tenants use everyday. I had a long dispute over the issue whether to have our own privacy with a new and separate entrance for us or this sharing of the door and passage to be continued. My family members said we should maintain certain degrees of privacy or individuality. They felt that the tenants living downstairs are really exasperating and their child intrudes very often. Of course my family members were right that one needs privacy and individuality but with family member occupying the house is depriving us of our sense of privacy. My family members were upset with me.
I took the matter differently, and observed the other side of the problem. The tenants have a boy, somewhat, coddled, naughty and could not be subdued easily. The other dimension we generally cannot visualize is the fact that the baby running here and there and behaving naughtily is kind of mollifying us, and or else we could feel deserted or unrespopnded. Of course we need to sacrifice our sense of freedom for our loved ones or if we are very retaliating too much and want complete freedom there would be no love, cooperation and empathy.
In the west people opt for freedom and liberty. Individualism is in focus. And that does not unify people and do not bond them together. In the east the sense of freedom is not that strong and people of course get dominated and subdued. In the east with excessive individualism there are more cases of separations or divorces and families are split up. In the east there is even a system of child marriages and of course some of them are really social problems but some help build-up relationships. There is more of sacrifices and of course societies are male-dominated but the fact is they are bonded socially and there are self sacrifices among women. Looking at it from the western or outsiders’ point of view these are social ills but in really this has kept them in harmony. Of course hierarchies in offices, in societies and families are something despised but in reality it has helped people to have a sustained family structure.
Of course majorities of us choose individuality to socialism but in reality and if we are keen observers we can realize that the opposite can be correct.

[billl]

I think it is good for families to be close, and to understand each other's struggles well. And the Western, the cosmopolitan, and the more technologically infused cultures often have family members that aren't so close to each other.

I think, however, outside of friends and family, there is little reason to believe that such intimacy would be a good thing. We should let the ideas speak more strongly than social connections and pledges of fealty. By extending our love and trust more and more equally to outsiders, we cheapen our experiences and our bonds with friends and family. By sacrificing privacy, we lessen ourselves, and take steps closer to being mere atoms in a larger will. We can glorify such a trend as divine, but I prefer a vision of divinity that does not diminish individual creative capacity. I aim for a world where increasingly interesting people have greater opportunities to experiment, create, connect, share, and compare--rather than a world where increasingly standardized souls surrender to the demands of some efficient matrix.

[Maximilianus]

Well, of course you will have harmony when one person assumes the role of the chief while the others are degraded to a state very similar to slavery, if not slavery itself, without much complain, like what happens in those countries where, for example, women are very seldom treated as human beings. It's as though someone was saying "Hey, I'm the big man here, I have the right to express myself and you don't" and then someone else is saying "Oh, whatever you say big chief, you are someone and I am nothing at all, not even a fly on the wall". You have a lot of peace there, but where does justice fit? Nowhere of course, because if you have no freedom to express yourself, then there is justice for the one giving the orders but not for the one taking them under the threat of severe punishment if they don't. So the chief will be in harmony, but not the others, so we may well wonder "Who is this person to have the right of harmony while the rest don't have it?"

What I humbly believe is best is the concept of balance, that is "I am free to express myself and so are you, so that if our points of view collide then we sit over there and talk about the matter until we settle our differences and reach an agreement".

Now, this doesn't always work because there will always be people reluctant to communicate. But on the other hand if you can't settle differences with one person, then you can do it with the others, and that's something that makes me feel particularly well when it happens, and you don't have to sacrifice your whole freedom, maybe a bit of it but not the whole.

Besides, a sacrifice for someone else is not really a big thing if you keep the majority of your integrity intact. It's not like you are giving your whole self away to someone else, just a bit of it. As I said, with good communication you can achieve balance without the need for any of the parts involved to subdue to a totalitarian regime. And if communication is not possible, then they'd better split apart before someone gets hurt (in every sense of the word).