Honor: 0 [ Give / Take ]
8 entries this month
On Respect
00:34 Mar 31 2017
Times Read: 188
Respect is defined as a deep admiration for someone or something that is elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. Neato. So I could leave this post right there and it would summarize exactly what respect is to me. However, because I’m a wordy little thing, I’m going to unpack and expand this to fill a page or so.
The first point to unpack is the depth. If I think back, I absolutely do have a sort of spectrum for how much I may respect a person (or thing). There are certain people I hold in enough regard that I would be at risk of taking their word as law. Coming from the BDSM scene, anyone I’ve gotten into a relationship is usually pretty high up that scale if not at that “word is law” point, for example. There is also a tier of respect for me that is entirely neutral, which is generally reserved for those who I haven’t interacted with enough to put somewhere on the spectrum.
Just to make it more complicated, there are people who I respect more in relation to certain topics. Much like I would not go to a dentist with an ear infection, or to the local butcher for veterinary advice, there are just some things that I am more likely to trust certain people with.
So let’s use that as the segue into the ‘elicited by their abilities…’ section and unpack that a little. Well, simply put, you don’t go up the respect spectrum without actions. Whether it be your words, your physical actions, or your reactions to events, you have to make an impact to rise on this scale any. Perhaps you were a compassionate ear in a time of need. Perhaps you know a lot about a topic I find curious. Perhaps you are a talented conversationalist. Or a good friend. Whatever it is, you worked for it if you’re on my spectrum past that freebie “generally respected person” tier.
An aside, I also respect certain things. Sometimes I respect them more than I do people. One common example I can think of is that I hold a great deal of respect for fire. I won’t treat fire callously, because I’ve seen the things it can do. Another is severe weather and storms. Similar reasoning, they can just be outlandishly powerful and not something I take lightly. I also have a great deal of respect for wildlife. Often these things are higher on the list than most people.
For those of you following, you’ll notice that I have now colored just a little bit out of the lines. I respect these things, obviously, because they are dangerous to some degree. This is sort of a call-back to one of my prior journals on enemies. Yes, if I think you pose a threat, you are in possession of certain abilities or qualities that require some caution. That, in my books, confers at least a little bit of respect. In the case of all the above examples, much of their respect is earned by the fact that they are amoral forces. Chances are that if I am going toe-to-toe with you, you’ve earned at least some degree of respect. Even if that respect is just that you’ve more than matched me in your maliciousness.
Another thing that’s tying in here that came up as I wrote goes beyond the dictionary definition. Trust. You can wind up on my respect list with or without trust. Almost without fail, the people who have the trust wind up much farther along than people who do not. There are a few people who shatter this particular black and white breakdown. Rivals tend to fall under this heading for me. People I associate with who aren’t necessarily to be trusted, but we have a very particular way of challenging each other for the better. I respect their critiques, suggestions and ideas…but I’m not about to trust them not to take a shot if I ease up the defenses.
So that pretty much summarizes respect. However, it is incomplete. What about those I do not respect? Surely I don’t just respect everybody, right? Well, no. I don’t respect everyone. As I said, everyone pretty much starts out first impression as a neutral position. Generally at this point, there has been little to no interaction. Take “Random Client”. Random Client is the guy who walks in, does his business and leaves. He’s simply neutral, he’s likely done nothing to sway me in either direction.
Now say I am outside and someone walks up to me on the street. They say hi, they are at the neutral respect tier. Say they proceed to insult me. Well, we’re now downgraded to what I’ll refer to as “Civil”. I will no longer take any of their opinions to heart certainly. If my attempts to understand if it was a case of mistaken identity or some such thing prove to be incorrect, and the person continues to be a jerk, then they will likely get downgraded into what I would probably label the “Incongruent Personalities” tier. Let’s face it, there are just some people who rub others the wrong way. Not everyone is going to be a friend. While I can generally feign some sort of civility with these people, it takes active effort. Most notably here, I will probably outright dismiss any of their opinions. They’re going to have to work their own ass back up from this stage.
Respect is one of the things I use to determine whether I should seriously consider the suggestions, ideas, and opinions of others. When I am uncertain on something, I go to the people I respect for their perspectives and advice. Of course, this is a two-way street. I try to be reflexive in my daily life, thinking carefully on my words and actions. I try to own up to my missteps and mistakes when I notice them or they are pointed out. There are a lot of actions I make so that others might find me respectable, and because that’s who I would like to be. So here’s hoping I don’t just consistently come off as a total jackass.
I suppose I should probably address that last lingering thing that influences all this. Who am I to say what is a respectable action? Is this all not just being blatantly judgemental?
Yes. Yes it is.
Though I will reserve my thoughts on judgement for another post. Otherwise we might be here a while.
Phases in Constructionism
19:54 Mar 23 2017
Times Read: 204
(Why yes, I am rushing my writing of this a little bit. Mostly because I am snowed in and have a bit of time on my hands. Partially because that annoying, nagging perfectionist part of me wants all things to do with this topic on one single month, instead of spread throughout the journal.)
The first note that I would really like to start off on is that I’m not entirely convinced that I should refer to these as phases at all. Some of them overlap, happen simultaneously, occasionally flip-flop between one or the other, and they do not necessarily always go in the order listed. It’s fully possible to bypass a phase entirely. Some people probably never bother to go through any of this at all.
A general summary of Constructionism is a process by which the Self can be reinvented. In order to shorten this little journal to not get into other topics, I’m going to assume for the moment that the Self refers to our belief systems, our concepts of who we are and our place in the world. Let us assume for the time being the Self is an actual thing that exists, and that it can shift in the first place.
The Taken For Granted
Our first phase, I’ve basically stolen directly from Sociology. The “taken for granted” is a concept which refers to how we are generally socialized into society. We are taught from very early on how things are supposed to work. The taken for granted are the things “everyone knows”, the bulk of “common sense” items, societal expectations, norms, and so on. These ideas are so well steeped into everyday life that, generally speaking, they are never questioned. After the inquisitive childhood phase, these are things that no one feels the need to explain any further, because that’s just the way it is. While it is theoretically possible to never challenge these viewpoints, and to just follow along the social script indefinitely, sometimes the taken for granted gets fractured.
The most common fractures seem to occur when a person comes across cultural differences, or interacts with those with alternative viewpoints. Basically, some person, idea, or event has to break through the socialization process and cause a questioning of a previously held belief. In this taken for granted phase, these are beliefs you did not necessarily choose to have, but they were the default beliefs of the early childhood socialization process. Usually you can spot these sort of beliefs if they are defended by “because that’s what we were taught”, “because I said so”, and any variation of “because that’s what you’re supposed to do”.
Beliefs of how the world is guide us in it. They tend to predict our actions and our futures to some extent. For simplicity sake, I will be focusing mostly on beliefs during my examples of the phases, because they are often the easiest part of this to conceptualize. They can translate directly into actions.
For the simplest possible example, it was my default belief from a young age that all traffic lights consisted of only green, yellow and red lights. In my town, I swear we ordered them in bulk. It was just the exact same light setup across town, there was no differentiating them. This was just how I assumed all lights were. We had no advanced turn signals, just the green, yellow, red. No additional thought had to go into that idea. Green was go, red was stop.
Fracture
In the case of fractures to taken for granted beliefs, it can be as simple as being exposed to something that directly contradicts that belief. Mind you, these sorts of challenges generally need to be something tangible and empirical to actually get a person to realize that their worldview was limited. Otherwise, they can default towards the idea that their view is the proper one.
Well holy crap, there are other lights that happen to have another option! What in the name of all that is holy is that fourth light option for?
Assuming that the fracture is something that is not taken for granted, but a chosen belief, generally the fracture is in the format of their belief being actively challenged by someone or something else. Two oppositional ways of thinking about one similar topic. Though there is a lot of overlap possible here, as one chosen belief can just collide with another new belief that seems better, and then we move straight into the next phase. I guess it really is the same general idea behind both types of fracture. Neither is necessarily better or worse for the person experiencing it.
Since I’m rolling with the traffic light example, the bad habit I picked up was that yellow lights mean to floor it and make it through. Well, in a small town this is just a-okay. When you get into the city, the fracture is the realization that turning appears to be a problem.
De/Construction
In short, the deconstruction is the act of removing the belief that you have decided is false from the belief set. My example is overly simple, as it focuses on one tiny piece of the whole worldview, however certain cornerstone beliefs may require that you swap out entire sections of beliefs.
Note to self, some lights aren’t the same style of lights.
Or in the case of my chosen belief: treating yellows as a last chance to get through the light is not favorable to allowing turning traffic to complete their turn.
And the closest my little traffic light scenario can get to a massive worldview shift is probably along the lines of: holy hell, they drive on the entire opposite side of the road in Britain and now I have to re-think driving entirely as it is not something that is the same for everyone who is a driver.
Interim
This was that optional period that can occur when there are larger or more complex reconstructions. In most of my examples, this won’t actually occur. However, now that I’ve introduced the larger worldview shift, that might actually be the only space to show an example of an interim phase.
When travelling to New Zealand, I had to familiarize myself with left-hand driving rules and regulations and take some time to actually work out how the driving might change in my head. This didn’t take a huge amount of time, but it did take some additional research.
Re/Construction
This is the phase where a chosen belief is integrated into the belief structure.
This is called an ‘advanced turn signal’, and is a common addition to traffic lights. It allows turning cars to safely cross oncoming traffic prior to their green. If I have the signal, I may go without waiting on oncoming traffic.
I will start slowing down when approaching a yellow light to allow the turning vehicles to safely turn.
I had someone take me out driving to properly learn how to drive in New Zealand.
Dynamic Equilibrium
This is the phase that allows for a sort of stability in integration. It is prone to shifting but can solidify if the reconstruction is no longer challenged by new information. In looking at my simplest example, I realize it is very much possible that the new piece goes right back to being taken for granted again.
There are multiple styles of traffic lights, which I’ll learn as I go.
At the dynamic equilibrium phase, I am that driver who actually does slow to a stop if the light turns yellow. It’s solidified into a predictable action for me.
Each new experience driving in another town or country serves to teach me a little bit more about driving as a whole. This will likely never be a finished, solid understanding of driving, as even driving itself has changed over the years. Simply put, driving is a more complex topic than I had initially anticipated.
Chances are I will not really bring this up again later in any depth, unless of course I entirely re-think the design of my concept at some point in the future. Hopefully this did an alright job of summarizing and giving example of how the phases might work. Sorry this was such a terrible example of how one might move from one phase to the next, though the more complex examples are usually those same short leaps of logic. This doesn’t work, there is a valid replacement for prior belief, replaced. That’s the basic structure.
Then again, I’ve always enjoyed complicating simple matters by over-thinking every little facet of them.
That’s almost entirely the reason I majored in Sociology.
Hope you enjoyed my little run-through of my concept of Constructionism.
Equilibrium in a Reconstructed Self
12:11 Mar 23 2017
Times Read: 219
As with anything new, there is going to be a period of adjustment. That period is likely to be more challenging depending on how much of your concept of self has actually shifted. Let’s say that you’ve come through that Re/Construction phase, and everything is functioning pretty well as it should. Done is done, right?
Not a chance. Life is chaotic and unpredictable. There will always be a new situation; there will always be some degree of unintended latent changes. There may be people out there who can get everything they touch right all the time, but most people are not that person. So here are my thoughts to the ever shifting reconstructed structure.
If you’re highly adaptable and a quick thinker, the new situations will not really faze you that much. You’ll find your answers out on the fly, and perhaps think back later and revise what you should have said or done and make sure you do that instead next time. This stage is for matching up your actions to the structure you built, after all. There will be some things that slip by, that you notice later and correct, and still more mental footwork. I suppose it’s sort of like a finishing run on the tower analogy. You’re looking for little imperfections and cracks and filling those in, polishing it all up to make it shine. Those who are easier to unsettle when having a conversation without the proper social scripting in front of them may have a harder time in this step. Perhaps they will withdraw a little from the social sphere until they figure out the majority of social responses. There are a lot of options.
As an example to illustrate this finishing step, I will take a page out of my own past. In a previous journal, I gave a short rant on hate. Hate is one of the things that I have removed from my structure some time ago. Of course, this required actively pausing myself when I realized I was doing anything driven by hate. I actively paused myself when I used the word for anything, I removed it from my daily discourse. There were a lot of things I described with hate. I hated ideas, people, situations; I hated coconut. It took a long time to re-write my speech to not use the word. That step alone is a lot easier now as I’ve had years to find different ways to express my intense dislike of coconut, for example. It gets easier in time. There will be situations that raise the emotion, but after a while, I just learned more productive ways to use the energy for something less destructive.
I mentioned latent changes a few paragraphs back there. Continuing on my analogy of hate, I can highlight how this may shake your reconstruction process just a little. For clarity sake, can I feel hate? Yes. Absolutely. I’ve merely learned to circumvent it into other things that I find more productive, at this point I do that without stopping to think about it. What does this do to the rest of the blocks in my tower though. Well, if my problem solving block consists of punch the offending person in the face, then I suppose that block is going to be less useful to me. Let’s face it, hatred is very much a useful tool in a fight. Certain other behaviors shift accordingly, and sometimes in ways you may not have intended. The way I deal with people in general has shifted dramatically. The way I solve problems has shifted dramatically. My patience has improved. The sort of people who are inclined to associate with me, or consider becoming friends with me has shifted.
Unfortunately for those counting on the high school punk, ready to jump in and vent off some of that uncontrolled rage on a hair trigger, that person faded out. Those that know me now don’t seem to be put off by the fact I’ve shifted into a diplomatic role. They’ve replaced me on the front line and put me in charge of trying to defuse a situation before it comes down to the fight or flight option. The ones who know me best are also well aware that I am also their exit strategy. The shield that will cover their ass at all costs if they need to get out of there. Was this my intent? Hell no. Things just had to keep shifting as more opportunities were opened up by me not being driven by an intense hatred for other people.
This is all part of why the Re/Construction never really stops happening. Shifting one little thing shifts other things, and it continues down the line. Which is why I would be tempted to label this phase after Re/Construction to be Dynamic Equilibrium (which is a biological concept of perpetual balance between two processes). This might be interrupted by a sort of break, which would set it all back into De/Construction. So I guess there you have it. That would be my total conceptualization of Constructionism thus far. Perhaps I will do a short summary with examples of all the phases as I’ve yet bothered to work out in my head.
Again, all these concepts probably exist in Psychology or Philosophy somewhere. I’m not laying claim to this being some grand, new, amazing model of the Self or Personality creation and maintenance…this is just how I’ve been conceptualizing a very complex task in my head. It is pretty much the only way I’ve ever known how to do a complete, massive overhaul of myself. Take it or leave it, but if you do know of any writings on the subject that sound similar, message or comment my journal, as I think I would like to read them.
Re/Construction
01:06 Mar 23 2017
Times Read: 223
Here we reach it, that next piece in the Constructionism theory. It’s only been, what…2 or 3 weeks since I started tearing pieces out. So what does a Re/Construction really look like? In all honesty, this is probably the least amusing stage of all internally. You’ve got all the pieces; you’ve decided on the worldview that you would like to take on a test run. In the tower analogy, you’ve now got all the materials and now you’re just tasked with putting it all back together cohesively. This is sort of a scaffolding step.
Of course, this takes time as each of these blocks represents something, an ideology, a set of premises, a self law to live by, and so on. Throughout this phase, there is a constant reconstruct happening until it is stabilized. This is done by holding to your chosen path, actively choosing your actions carefully to reflect the new mindset. Two points should be made here: the first being that this portion usually requires more mental footwork than any if it is to be in the least bit comfortable. In short, you will want to take some time to envision what actions, words, and reactions reflect the new worldview. This may take some mental rehearsal. In my case, I did much of this footwork in that interim period, as I knew a few of my ideologies were contradictory. I needed to see how they would work.
The second point is that if you build up this structure, and fail to support it with your actions, thoughts, and words, then it’s not worth a damn. You might as well not bother with this method at all. Once you hit this point, if you aren’t willing to give change a chance, and then it wasn’t worth a damn thing. You’re better off going back to the old structure and just patching the hole and flailing your hands as a distraction if someone notices it again. Nothing to see here, folks! Move it along. This method isn’t for everyone, I wouldn’t even suggest it to most, but if you’re looking into it – this step may be the most important. You need to be able to defend the new structure from a logical and practical standpoint. It helps. A lot.
Internally, again, this is a quiet step. Lots of reflection is involved. You are actively working against your routines. You may even be working against your prior morals. However you’ve got this set up, you pretty much need to watch your every move and thought here. This gets very boring and very repetitive very quickly. Micromanagement everywhere. Normally I would resent this, but it’s both a personal choice to do, therefore I am my own boss in the matter, and I accept it because I’m usually working towards a healthier way of processing the world around me. Until then, it’s a constant deconditioning and reconditioning of certain behaviors. Some of the deconditioning might have happened back in the de/construction though. That helps not put all the weight on this step.
It may serve to note that while the decision to start reconstructing may be done in a day or night, the actual process is not quick. Given that I’m just re-entering this phase after 3 weeks of foresight, I can expect that I’ll still be here for some long time. Honestly, I can’t be entirely sure that I leave this phase without going directly back into De/Construction. There is a working equilibrium where things are stable for a while, and certain situations in which you need to re-visit what your focuses are. Perhaps more on this equilibrium step when I get there.
From the outside, this is where Re/Construction gets very interesting. In my experience, they utterly piss people around you off. The sole reason for this is likely because your actions are prone to change and align to the new pathways. This makes you very much unpredictable, and people don’t like that. For example, say you think to yourself I am making myself sick by constantly saying yes to every request asked of me, I am going to switch out that block for ensuring I still have time for myself every week. You already know where that one is going. Someone who is counting on you to say yes to their proposal is likely to be less than impressed with you saying no to them. This rubs people the wrong way. I am deciding to be less judgemental of others. Grand, until you realize how much a friend might have bonded with you through gossip.
This change will have waves. At least if you are holding to it. Some people will be less than impressed – because you react in an unanticipated way, because you seem to have changed, because you don’t strike them as the same person, because they think something is wrong with you. To date, I don’t think anyone has actually left my life that I wasn’t holding the door open for. The fact is, when it comes to me, if I can explain why I am changing things up and they choose to take it personally, that’s their own problem. There’s the door. Most of the time, when I am shifting things, it is to get to a mental space that is not toxic and unhealthy. If I am in this position that I am shifting that much, something is terrifically wrong. After open communication, choosing to prioritize their own comfort over my health is a no go.
Of course, they may very well make some good points. Maybe whatever I am working for needs to be tempered a little bit, toned back. Maybe I’m charging headfirst into another pitfall. In this case, open communication lines will help to strike a balance in the finished reconstruction. As long as the person is not just trying to force you back into the previous iteration of yourself, it is a good plan to gain an outsider perspective into whatever you are doing. I suppose for me, it’s a question of logic. As long as I am not compromising my goals in a critical manner, and they are not just seeking convenience on their own part, there is likely some room for discussion there.
That fine balance of holding your ground and not burning bridges tends to be a challenge at the best of times. Either way, expect a challenge once in a while during a shift. They happen. A lot.
So I guess that pretty much brings me to the wrap up here. As a wrap up, I would strongly suggest building on your new structure. You should be able to defend your choices, your ideas. You should be able to build on as you learn more, add to this whole thing without too much difficulty once you have it relatively stable. I’m sure I will write about it at some point later on, but one of the methods for this is free-writing, or ink-shedding (Edit: see entry on Ink-Shedding under the Four Quarters section). Allow yourself to explore what you’re building. Make sure it makes sense to you. After all, if it doesn’t, you’ll be rebuilding or patching again shortly.
On Hate and Enemies
23:16 Mar 13 2017
Times Read: 236
I had a really great conversation with a friend today on the topic of hate, and ultimately we wound up discussing enemies. I realized that it has been a rather long time since I could actually say that I hated a person. Hell, the word ‘hate’ barely registers in my lexicon anymore. It is merely a qualifier word for things that I very strongly dislike. Moreover, I haven’t actually hated a person in a very, very long time.
It isn’t that I don’t understand hate. I surely have felt it, and felt it for other people before. I can sense it running through some people, and I can tell when certain actions are motivated entirely by hate. As a personal choice, I gave up running on bitterness and hate. Consciously, I’ve chosen not to let these things be my primary driving force. That was quite some time ago and I realize now that, after the break from it, I never did bother to go back again. Hate just really was not worth my time.
Of course, I would not take this to mean that I don’t have interpersonal issues with people, or disagreements. All it means is that I don’t really see a reason to hate a person. It’s been a rather long time since I let spite guide my actions either, for that matter. I prefer the removal method as much as possible. There’s really not a reason for me to stick around and continue the conversation or relationship if neither party is willing or able to compromise on a particular issue.
A waste of energy, that’s what it is to me. A lack of anything productive generally leads to the sort of stagnation that, if left too long, becomes toxic to everyone around. That is how I see hate now. An all-consuming fire that is so busy burning as hot and bright as it can that it does not actually advance towards its goal. Of course, I have seen a number of people manage to channel that hate so proficiently – it is possible to do, certainly. However, then they run the risk of consuming so much of themselves in the process. The vast majority of people don’t have that sort of choke on their hate engine, they just waste so much getting worked up and never get any farther for it.
I would sooner do all I can to understand as many sides to an issue that I can, and find a solution. Where there are none, I am entirely okay with not expecting every person to see eye-to-eye with me. I don’t even begin to imagine that is possible. And that is just fine with me.
That being said, it has also been a long time since I had anyone I could call an enemy. Partially because my mindset lends itself to diplomatic approaches, I assume. It could also be that it tends to be rather hard to get under my skin. There are very few things a person can do that will result in much more than a mental note that we should not exchange more than pleasantries. Almost all of the things that are likely to push my buttons would require a person to be actively seeking to harm me or those close to me. More often than not, it would involve they escalate beyond mere words.
A good friend of mine once told me “those that you choose as your enemy tells me more about you than those you choose as your friend.” This turned out to be a very good summary of how I tend to treat the idea of The Enemy. In order for me to declare someone an enemy, there must be a number of points met:
1. I consider this person a threat. Whether it be mentally, emotionally or physically, I am willing to admit that this person poses me some sort of potential threat.
2. I consider this person at the very least an equal. If they are capable of threatening me in some way that means that I am admitting that they have the potential to best me. I may have a healthy ego, but I also have a pretty healthy understanding of who around me can take me down a couple pegs.
3. I am unable or unwilling to concede on an issue with this person. Whatever this issue is had best be well thought out, and a staple piece of what I believe in. Otherwise the answer to the question of “is this really worth it?” will be a resounding no and I will likely just not get myself involved.
4. I consider this person respectable. Their opinion or actions, while different than my own, are well grounded. This is not a straw-man argument; it is not something I can wave off as misconception or confusion on their part. Obviously, if all the above is true, I consider this person a worthy adversary.
All that being said - I do very much choose my enemies much more carefully than I do my friends. Generally speaking, I choose friends because they have some overlap in interests, ideas or understandings of the world. Over time, there are bonds formed. With enemies, I choose those because they represent a legitimate challenge. I suppose that is partially unfair to my friends in that a number of them also pose me a legitimate challenge, and I am often close to them because they are a character foil or a rival to me. I do love a good challenge once in a while.
While I may eat my words at some point, I suppose it serves to say that if I am openly declaring war on you, chances are very high that I find you a worthy opponent. Either that, or I have just admitted to being far weaker than I have the potential to be.
So how about you out there reading this? How do you choose your enemies? Leave a comment or a message if you like.
The Interim Period
01:30 Mar 12 2017
Times Read: 248
Well, the base has been dug out, and I think I am all ready to go on the reconstruct. There’s just one glaring catch at this point. I need to know what this will all look like when it’s all said and done. It’s all fine and dandy to have these vast concepts in mind, but how will they translate into real world actions? How do these shifts look? After all, everything I’ve said is pretty well useless unless necessary changes are made to fit into your own world.
I mean, otherwise I could just close my eyes and build a world where I am unbelievably wealthy.
That doesn’t work, by the way. In fact, I’m pretty sure if you do that, you just wind up spending money like it does not matter - and then reality steam-rolls you. You wind up worse off than you started.
The goal now is to know exactly what these changes are, and to put them in line with current realities. After all, I’d really like to see this whole thing last for a while. There are a couple new pieces here, ones I haven’t engaged with much. Which means I really do need to put some additional thought in to that part where I pull this off, where it makes sense, and where everything is solid. You see, that is the Virgo talking. That is the walking to-do list talking. Everything according to plan, and that plan shall be flawless, glorious.
So during this interim period, I suppose I am going to shake a few trees. Find people who have the traits I need to focus more upon. Stalk them a little. See how they operate, take notes (not literally…I don’t think) and get to know how it looks to be in that sort of mindset. Then I can put back the things that go well with that track and that view. Let’s see if this works haha.
For as patient as I generally am, these sorts of gaps can be maddening.
Wish me luck.
De/Construction
00:32 Mar 09 2017
Times Read: 259
Currently, I am in a deconstruction phase. There isn’t really a rhyme or reason as to when I wind up in what phase, but in this case a number of my premises were thoroughly tested and could not hold up. So I started tearing out things that just did not work. For the first time, though, I came to the realization that my mental analogies were missing something vital. Solid ground. Curiosity has gotten the best of me now, and I am working at chipping away everything that is not a cornerstone.
I would like to see what is left.
With all the non-essential pieces out of the way, what is left of me? What is the vital thing that makes me who and what I am? The standard question that has already rung through the ages: who am I? Once I’ve gotten down far enough to figure out what that is, and create myself a better framework, I can again build upwards. It would be false to say I’ve not contemplated these long standing questions. I have just never really incorporated my interests in them into my constructions prior. You learn something new every day I suppose.
In my experience, deconstructions can be rapid, or slow. They can also be self-initiated, or externally initiated. Where I am at is a relatively rapid self-initiated tear down. I probably did not actually have to go as far as I have, but curiosity is usually one of my best and worst traits. I’ve been at this model of thinking and processing for a number of years, and I suppose this is the first time I’ve really written it out. Writing it out is definitely more challenging than tackling it in passing thought or in meditation. Dealing with deconstructions has gotten much easier in the last little while. Perhaps I am just used to them now. That awkward period of shifting just doesn’t seem so…hopeless anymore. Then again, I self-initiated this whole thing, so at least it wasn’t a surprise. Those particular collapses are usually less than kind.
Presently, I’ve got a lot of work ahead of me if I really want to solidify what it is that strikes me as the core of my self. Much of it is going to be guesswork, yes, if that is what you’re thinking. The great thing about this whole cyclical thinking is that I can always revisit the questions if they pose a problem later down the road. The method I’m working with at the moment is testing my initial responses to things. Theoretically and physically facing myself with situations and working off gut instincts as much as possible. While this obviously wouldn’t come close to empirical data in an experiment, as a person cannot shed all their biases, it may be the closest introspection I can do into what makes me act and react - which tells me a lot about what sorts of things I value that will have to go back into my worldview somewhere.
This method of testing responses is a new piece I am trying out. Prior to this point, I was just standing back and throwing value judgements at the pieces that were left to choose if they went back in. Or worse yet, by just reintroducing everything I could with a slightly different spin. These methods did not really work out in my favor. Yeah, they held for a while. The problem with this is that anyone actively attempting to influence, manipulate or otherwise break down or control you just needed to focus in on the weak spots. Once they did, the whole thing was a wreck again. Other misfortunes included learning new information that invalidates key parts of your worldview. Your only real options when these things happen are to rebuild, to ignore the new evidence, or stand there and watch everything fall. The rebuild option sounds the best to me, honestly. This time, the goal is to get to the most vital parts that make me who I am, and select whatever else gets to go along with it carefully. Whatever goes into the thing I build needs a damn good reason to be there.
As you might imagine, deconstructing small sections at a time is generally a lot easier than trying to tackle the whole thing at once. I apparently enjoy the challenge of this little jenga game. Maybe the reason I enjoy it is also part of my particular core self. Unfortunately how I build my worldview, and the things I find out about myself while doing so, tend to be immensely personal for me. So I can’t say I will be sharing much of what I find in journal form. All I can say is that when you find concepts and ideas that work against what you are going for, don’t be afraid to throw them out. Do not put them back to eat away at what you’ve built.
So, anyone who has been reading this runs the chance of thinking I’m an absolute nutter. Which is true. But I do understand where you’re coming from. I am actively using an analogy of a tower in order to advocate positive personal growth. I am aware that this thing I see as a brick is not actually equivalent to my compassion, or that terrible experience I had in gym class. However, this analogy is one way to work towards cutting out the things that hold us back. Removing toxic thoughts, actions, ideas before they fester. This is merely one way of thinking about the self and how we can change it to benefit ourselves. This thing I do for myself, to adapt and thrive in ever-changing environments.
I am not a self-help book, but by all means, if you are looking at this and enjoying this new perspective - take it and run with it. Make up your own analogy. Stir up your thoughts. Anything that gets me reflecting on being better is good in my books. I certainly wouldn’t be where I am without these concepts.
Hopefully some out there find this helpful, either way. More to come in time.
Constructionism
22:03 Mar 08 2017
Times Read: 277
Caution: this person is constantly under construction.
The phrase was simple enough. I can’t even quite tell you where it first came from. Perhaps it came from the lack of sleep in University. Though to this day, I hold it with me and it has not lost it’s glean of truth within my world. Figuring out why it stuck is probably even harder than figuring out how I came across it in the first place. This phrase has been like a banner held high for me for almost a decade now. So my writing task for the day, I suppose, is to try and explain to myself why. Those of you reading might be interested to come along. Or not, whatever floats your boat.
Within Sociology, there is the concept of the social construction of reality. Likely that concept has had a great influence upon how I have built my own worldviews. Which of the two concepts pre-dates the other, I am not entirely sure. I label myself as a Constructivist. The social construction of reality, which I believe was originally proposed by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann if you’re up for some reading, is a theory that humanity undergoes a socialization into a shared stock of knowledge, symbols and ideas from an early age, which colors how they perceive, experience and live within their world. We create and help institutionalize a shared symbolic universe of common knowledge – things everyone knows.
Grand ideas and I do put a lot of stock in their concept. It makes sense to me from the experiences that I have had in my life. However the shared universal knowledge is also influenced by a person’s first-hand experience with their world. I owe a very large portion of who I am to being influenced by other worldviews, other cultures, many subcultures. Likely, the best explanation I have for knowledge is that I view it much like a tower of bricks, we add things, we remove them; we replace them little by little as we experience the world farther and reflexively think about it. While we may be subject to learning specific socialized traits, they don’t necessarily need to stay there.
So one can build up their understanding of the world as they see fit. Which has it’s pros and cons, certainly. Have you ever watched someone’s who worldview collapsed. It isn’t pretty. The major con in this is that when a vital piece of that worldview is disturbed, the whole damn thing can come crashing down if you’re not able or willing to replace it with a new concept.
The positive that comes out of this though – if you’re able to accept new ideas as new information presents itself and you’re ready to defend vital pieces of that worldview, it can withstand an ever-changing environment. This is the part that speaks to me right here. There are some blocks in my worldview that others might find dated. Maybe they are entirely incorrect in your experience. Those are likely the ones I have learned through debate and discussion to rationally defend. This isn’t to say that people haven’t leveled my little tower a time or two.
You learn quite quickly not to be overly attached to your own worldview. It’s changeable. It does so for good reason. Rather than sit in the wreckage for months or years, you learn to pick up the pieces you like the most and put them back down on solid ground and built back up better than the last time. This is Constructionism. For those that are curious, and you may have caught it in the way I speak, I’m not crazy enough to think that there is one all-consuming Truth that we might know out there. We’re in our little fish-bowl; we have no way to verify a damn thing.
Weighing my options, I decided that I am more in favor of building your own world, and mitigating that danger of forcing it on others by recognizing that I built it, and it is exclusively mine. This is pretty much the exact reason that I am not about to start throwing candles and lit incense at anyone and berating them about not being a pagan. This worldview hasn’t got a place for a one-size fits all mentality.
Apparently I have a lot to say on this topic, but if you’ve been following along this far, you’re probably not going to lose your train of thought over another few paragraphs.
For those familiar with it, I am pretty set in my ways so far on subscribing to a pragmatic theory of knowledge. Perhaps there is an influence of standpoint theory in there, as well. I suppose the best way to put my take on knowledge is through an example. How do I know if it’s raining? Well, the most accurate way I know of is to either look outside, or open the door. It’s raining. Of that, I am sure enough to plan to put on a water-resistant jacket. While this method doesn’t work so well on predicting whether it will rain later, my first-hand knowledge tells me that my jacket fits in my backpack and that will work. Now, if you don't care if it's raining, I'm not about to try and hassle you about not having a jacket with you, because that's your own business. I have been around long enough to know what tends to work for me and what doesn’t, with some degree of certainty (or enough so that I am comfortably able to operate on a day-to-day level).
Summarizing what I have dubbed Constructionism – and if I haven’t said it, this may already be a thing that I either haven’t crossed paths with yet, or have gone and forgotten about entirely, if so, please comment and I would love to read it! – Constructionism is the building up of your own personal set of values, ideas, judgements, and ways of living in the world around you, while being aware that they are personally created and maintained through first-hand experience in the world.
I find operating on this assumption to work out wonderfully for me. When things go south, you allow your personality and ideas to shift. You become more critical of things in your worldview that are causing you problems. You tear out pieces that no longer fit, and replace them with new ones that will help you rather than hinder. Hell, you can kick the whole thing over if it’s all just gone to hell and you need to rework it. So yes, I am a person who is constantly under construction. Which works out just fine if you want to be able to shift as your social world does. Mind you, it is a little less handy if the prospect of change terrifies you.
So far, the challenge has been well worth it.
The cycle of destruction and creation is written in our blood. Just don’t forget that when the tower comes crashing down; the wise thing to do is start putting it back together. Preferably a little bit sounder than it was before.
This is where I leave you; I’d appreciate any messages or comments on this journal. As I said, if I can’t defend my ideas, they have no place in my world.
COMMENTS
-