nuestro laberinto invisible

[gabs, this is inspired by your recent talks, talks we’ve had, i’ve had, and general stuff that eats my wigs daily]

to the idea of being “right” – when is a person right and another one wrong- or when does one not know what’s best or ultimately good or that will produce the best results in the end for themselves (or others)?

is the previous questionings too abstract? too second-guessing in nature? how can any one of us really know the best or absolute optimum results unless we can review in hindsight and then go back and repeat multiple combinations of action to see what produces the best outcome. if it’s to be questioned, when do we question?

i have often run into this problem or kind of thinking – where this thinking insinuates itself while i’m living the world – it seems to come naturally, reactively and not so much(or at all) from associative social programmings or learned social conditionings. but it does stop me in my tracks, slow me down, and worst of all – subtly undermine my moment-to-moments. it’s fine when philosophisizing with someone or self, but not when it hinders moment-function in the short or in long.

i’ve had “arguments” with my friend storm about the above, or the basic aspects at the root; which is: on one relative hand you have a person who is lazy, complacent, justifying, distracted, questioning, looks for easy ways, rests on laurels and then on the other relative hand you have a hard worker, disciplined, do- not think, confident, take action, etc.

the argument being about what root reason(s) separates those two types. (and also which one is “bad” and which one is “good”). is it because a person is chosing to avoid risk or responsibility or ? additionally is the person who is “successful” chosing to be successful (i would say “seemingly”-successful because how can we know what is ultimately successful for that individual? what is happening is that we see a arbitrary or fragmented point of view with additional personal abstracts assigned to fill in the gaps thus creating an optimal version of perceived success from our perspective of things.)?  are either persons so right, righteous, or in control of those outcomes- at least to the point where we are made to think that the results/outcomes we perceive of them are because of their being a “good model of human” as opposed to our failing model(that is “we are failure so we should follow the good model”). this kind of harkens to the (as i see it) unfounded devaluation of an individual that is “born a sinner” “born dirty” and is instantly unworthy.

did those two do it all on their own?

my argument is that we are not entirely in control of everything, which obviously includes ourselves. that what is left to our absolute choice and action is only a small part of what contributes or influences our lives. maybe for some they may go through life without realizing(or making-up) this kind of sphere of existence(perhaps they don’t need to or simply aren’t “wired” to), the core of which could be considered our own psyche. maybe for some they are able to live life with relatively little perceived problems(that they or others see or realize). but it is my observation that we all have hidden chapters that are not so well-chiseled, and at the same time, is also available for observation from the external perspective.

regarding the external product and it’s “hidden” lineage or legacy: “it must be nice (to live their life)” is said, but i say “you don’t know what it took them to get to the point you are now seeing; to the perceived success in front of you or that you are reacting to.” “you just summed up their life in the perceived success you are swooning over; idolized them, packaged them. you probably haven’t even considered that what you are seeing is an abstract application or projection of your own desires and experiences to their relatively singular result without the added aspects or examination of what you really are about; or that you have forgotten about what it’s like to live a human life thus reducing their humanity to a packaged result.” “then again if it was a simple refrain acknowledging your reaction to the observed aspect, you probably hadn’t thought about what it means to promote an obscure and abstract phrase like that in society. think it through and craft what you say from what your wisdom and intuition have built. do you really mean that it would be nice to have what they have? to have all that it took to have what they have in that relatively singular result you are reacting to? rather, it is that you want to have an equivalent result made from your own life’s doings.” but then again, who am i to say what one wants and does not want.

i’ve observed people who respond/react to a thing and then without much self-examination claim it is what they want for themselves (to do, be, etc.). they are, perhaps, emotionally swept away by whatever chemical situation is occurring in their minds. perhaps other chemicals are at work – biology, shucks. but it’s the lack of checks and balances of one’s self that I react to. when I say checks and balances it’s not “out of control” or excessive checks and balances, or ones that come to be used as avoidance,– it’s a healthy and balanced look at one’s self.

i liked to say that self-checks are good to do (if they come more naturally to you then great, if not – then working at it would do you well) and that when emotional chemicals swell and you are “out of control” that the self-checks you’ve done act as an emotional seat-belt. accidents may still occur but you have an enhanced ability to wield the outcome.

the two relative “hands” mentioned earlier, even in relative form, are ideas generally sold and held in the human cultural mind. adages throughout recorded history as far back as the greeks have made these kinds of defined categories that all humans should fit into – without offering caveat or asterisk.

in defined form you are either a slacker or a doer. there are no stories in the gray. it’s only black and white. and generally, this is why so many people fall through the gray cracks, because the average of any support element (group, person, advice, process, resource) is centered on what has evolved to survive on its own. it survives because of the numbers of participation and resultant direct or indirect feedback about its success. the exceptional range(of people) is not generally accommodated for. but then again, what happens when the numbers-in-exception are substantial in numbers?  but back to evolution – or the squeaky wheel: it is addressed when it comes to be addressed; by need, situation, demand, etc.

if it’s not then those of “exception(al)” situation have to go it on their own.

regarding the application of advice or following what others have done:

i hear/read the success stories or promotion of success story as model/instruction to those who aren’t “successful.” of course there is a lot of marketing for the effect of marketing, it’s not greed entirely but the facility being utilized is not concerned with the real well-being of the individual and the myriad outcomes that may play out in their life – the main concern is to attract persons to buy or involve resources of some varied kind in the item or event.

these success stories operate under a general premise that all humans are the same. that all “can do it”(in the same way)(“if they want it enough” “is important enough”) with isolated and often “simple” process or element. the disclaimer of “results may vary” is made very very small when it exists if at all. marketing doesn’t do well when you make your target prey – audience confused, scared, unsure, or otherwise bring thoughts that invite doubts or comparison with various perspectives, outcomes, or worse – altering perceptions and associations.

the point to the above is that it questions when someone is right or when they are wrong. “do you really know what’s good for you? let us help you, or help yourself with this other way.”

how far do you take that? when do you listen to yourself or your own nature, habits, experience, observations and when do you stop trusting yourself because some other group, professionals, science (says it has done studies or has vast and even “trusted” experience) says or implies you are doing “it” wrong. that your life is not being lived correctly, in general, or even specifically to your dynamic.

how do they know(everything/me)? or colloquially said with knee-jerk bias “who do they think they are?”

“mistakes” aren’t absolutely a bad or a good or even inbetween. mistakes are an ingredient, an aspect, attribute; not isolated but incorporative. And maybe it’s not such a bad thing to make our own mistakes even in the light of others having “already made them.” sometimes we need to not “reinvent the wheel” but actually “invent a new wheel” for ourselves. customize what others say “needs no fixing ‘cause it ain’t broke.”

working smarter can mean to work harder, to go against grains and proven grounds, to put in mindless effort that may reveal insightful paths along the way of effort.

working harder can mean to work through smarter means, preparation comes to mind, planning does to. this way, hard work can be applied with relative abandon and concentration.

[relative tangent of supporting topic]

“the educated person and regimes” or “the good of the group outweighs the individual.”

uneducated people can indeed create chaos. because generally humans are a social group and they need cohesive tender; humans do not necessarily need leaders– just a cohesive medium to survive and thrive in. or not even “thrive” – just an arrangement that sates the general dynamic of a person: instincts, intellect, wisdom, intuition – all of it sated. something relative, familiar, recognizable. as a side note to the reception of a people to a thing: “trust” is not a choice, it is an aggregation of observed and/or applied and consistent positive, negative, or neutral outcomes. when someone decides or chooses to “trust” they are in fact taking what is called a chance, gambling or accepting the risks of the unknowns.

when there are too many disparate thinkings that effect the group, friction within is created. at this time is when leaders may arise, a kind of average of who is thought to be strongest, smartest, or that consistently has provided the best outcomes. this average, in one way or another, “votes” or assigns a leader or leaders to right the group. when i say that the group assigns, i don’t necessarily mean “consciously” or purposefully; i just mean that one way or another leaders “come to be.” some leaders may come more by way of their choice, or more by the groups choice, or some other external influence – but groups, leaders, and individuals do not operate on their own. they are all connected.

“i just don’t want it enough” “it must not be important then”

i was thinking about these phrasings and the thinking or ideas behind them; i was also thinking about the idea of a person looking for the easy way out versus the person who does hard work.

those categories or phrasings are so full of fallacy and advocates of misconception that just act to confuse people more when they could be helped with more insightfully-worded phrases.

a person is not absolutely lazy or “bad” if they look for an easier or less resource-heavy way of doing things. in fact, geniuses are often praised (well after the fact of the proven product/good they are genius for) for this (generally humans want the reward of risks without taking the risks – this is basic instinct of survival). additionally, a person who “works harder” is not necessarily doing things right or good, in fact they may be hindering things for not applying some thought/wisdom to the matter.

obviously the phrases are targeting specific types of situations/people but, in their phrasing, offer “incomplete” ideas for those that don’t read between the lines (apply the references to various scenarios to then apply interpreted, digested forms to their own life).

phrases are like marketing in that they strive to prove a singular point(to sell). they have direct aims on the lesson being referenced or promoted. doubt or caveats are not something a person who is trying to make a point wants to offer.

“well maybe the person is just confident, and not really trying to hide, brainwash, or conduct the audience.” indeed, but consider this: confidence can be a result of proven consistent outcomes that one has come to trust(of themselves, a process, of another, etc.). but what if the consistent outcomes are in-of-themselves and “ultimately” incorrect? short term they are right or absolute, but in long term they are revealed to be false, incorrect, or even detrimental.  hindsight offers much but only after the fact, after the damage or success, the life lived, the right or wrong courses taken.

i’ve observed the fallacy of self-proclaimed or identified, so-called, “confidence” or it’s counterpart: “insecure.”

they, like many (if not all things), are only ingredients to our soup of existence. they are not absolute and/or infallible. but at what point do you second guess your confident or insecure nature? do you or should you think twice about who you are? ever? at all?

isn’t who we are “at the end of the day” “after all is said and told”- who we are(our nature)? how much [more] should or can we try to be something different? isn’t every moment, in fact, different? are we mincing too many words and ideas? should someone say “now, come on. you know what i mean.” – but do we know what another means? shouldn’t things be defined if they are going to be stated (especially when stated as unequivocal leans)? maybe our problem is that we are all guessing at what worlds lay behind the words shared by one another.

perhaps instead of fighting who we are we let ourselves be; listen to that, and evolve a relationship to enhance who we are if that is what is in us to do. “enhancing” can mean “more” or “refined” and like viruses, humans seem to tend to work towards “more” than to find that refining balance; where their own dynamic can then act as ingredient to the soup of existence.

not fighting(for) is not necessarily or absolutely an excuse to avoid the pain of the fight or responsibility. we are not all inherently “dirty” or deadbeats. we aren’t all trying to come up with excuses all the time, but i feel the way to tune our harmonies and refine our flavour is to be who we are earnestly, honesty.

No one thing is bad nor good. all is ingredient in dance.

all the above are thinkings that i’ve had. but the main thing i find from all of this is the importance of really knowing and listening to one’s self.  to listen to the biometry and the daily movement of your being. this overall dynamic of your “self” has a song that one can hear. it may seem like hoke and doff and all “touchy feely” but, well at least for those that it works for – i say that we each do well by knowing ourselves. not just in saying the phrase, going through rote self-help instruction, or trustingly-blindly applying promoted routines, but to get to that place where you are able to see yourself, to really connect and stay that connection- free its aperture.

life is balancing. existence balances. “balance” is the best word i know to use other than “dance.” we can know ourselves but it’s not just ourselves; and we recognize this when we see ourselves, discover our self and dynamic- our context dynamic. we are a connected whole that only seemingly is contained within the cell walls of our body, but if we follow the connections through, we see the radiant sphere emanating from us, emanating from everything. “a single needle will prick the soul but an endless plane of needles, together, supports it.”

water provides a lot of metaphor for cross-referenced revelation-in-example such as the connectivity of water molecules to create a whole body of water, the waves to be fought and controlled or cooperated with and ridden, reflection in the calm or indication in the chaos, “what the current brings,” the result and routine of the tides by the influence of the moon, earth, sun and various bodies in connected in existence, amoung many others. i like the physics-instance of releasing surface tension on the underside of a canvas tent in a camping-rain; simply by touching the underside of the canvas, water is given a new path to flow. i’m sure you can quickly see the applications of that example to many things in life, especially- human life.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s