Sadness captured in a song fuels joy.

I dislike the phrase “all in” when referring to someone’s commitment to something, because it’s too easily contended. The moment any measure of time, energy, or attention is spent elsewhere, a person is no longer all in. Nobody is all in. It’s an unhelpful absolute.

I don’t think that’s what people–those who are professing their commitment–mean by it. Rather, the concern I have is how that particular phrasing is so exploitable by those who doubt or criticize that person’s commitment.

I’ve been trying to figure out what DOES constitute a satisfactory level of commitment to something. What is figuratively meant by “all in”? What is an alternative way of expressing it which does not suffer from the issue of absolutes?

I like the phrases “not holding back” and “not withholding” better for descriptions of commitment. Rather than focusing on the failure to fully invest toward positively affecting the thing to which a person is committed, the attention turns to NOT deliberately limiting positive things which might happen naturally. It suggests a purity of desire. Plus it’s more Buddhist, which is all the rage.

Yet that is still an absolute. We all hold back, even if it’s just the tiniest bit, due to things like doubt, uncertainty, fear, etc. And while these are often very healthy to maintain in certain situations, they do represent a failure to commit absolutely.

Furthermore, simply being passive about something is not synonymous with commitment to it. I’m not holding back on Jill Johnson’s relationship with Jack Jones in Lexington, Kentucky. This isn’t because I’m committed to their relationship. It’s because I don’t care.

Perhaps the accurate way to identify commitment to something is neither how much someone does to positively affect it, nor how much they DON’T do to negatively affect it, but rather a comparison between the two. So rather than expecting someone to be “all” in the expectation is that the “in” exceeds the “out”–or “mostly” in.

I’ll give that a try. I’ll tell my spouse that I mostly want to be with her. I’ll tell my family that I mostly care about their well-being. I’ll tell my employer that I’m mostly willing to be here. That way, they’ll know that I’m committed.

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B retaliates and harms Person A intentionally. Person B believes herself to be morally superior. Person A either believes the retaliation to be justified, or retaliates and harms Person B again, this time intentionally. Repeat.

The tragedy of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B retaliates and harms Person A intentionally. Person A forgives Person B, without blaming himself, in order to end the harm.

The civility of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B sees that it was unintentional, and does not return the harm.

The magnanimity of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B intentionally. Person C murders Person A, and anyone loosely affiliated with Person A.

Nearly every “hero” movie ever.