#rather than being allowed to exist in a state of ambiguity and appreciated by different people for different reasons | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

robininthelabyrinth · 3 years

Text

Spilled Pearls

- Chapter 10 - ao3 -

Lan Qiren was only made aware that Wen Ruohan had fixed things when he realized that two weeks had gone by without anyone saying anything about him personally and had, out of a sense of morbid curiosity, asked one of his teachers about it.

“Oh, didn’t you hear?” his teacher asked, nose deep in one of the musical scores they’d put together for the array project, hunting for the flaws. “The sworn brother business was just part of one of his schemes to gain additional power amongst the Great Sects.”

Having been involved in it, Lan Qiren wasn’t so sure about that. “What do you mean, honored teacher?”

“He’s been finding ways to form new ties with all the Great Sects, not just ours,” his teacher explained. “It’s all come out; some very clever people figured it out. There’s a new trade agreement with the Jiang sect that both sides were keeping hushed up, something going on with the head of the Nie sect that the Nie sect disciples are being especially close-mouthed about, and, of course, his new connection with the Jin sect…it’s really not that surprising that he decided to find a way into our Lan sect by trickery.”

His teacher said it casually, as if of course Lan Qiren's sworn brotherhood had been formed by a slightly underhanded maneuver rather than torture or rape or anything like that, and while of course that was in fact true, Lan Qiren was stunned by the fact that what passed for common knowledge in the cultivation world had been flipped on its head in such a short time.

Truly, Wen Ruohan’s cunning was boundless. It was a little frightening.

“Say,” his teacher added. “As his sworn brother, you’ll be attending the wedding, won’t you? You should bring back some stories!”

Lan Qiren stared blankly. “…what wedding?”

It turned out that Wen Ruohan’s new connection with the Jin sect was through a marriage. The bride wasn't surnamed Jin, that would be too much for most people to tolerate without some sort of excuse; she was instead from a powerful subsidiary sect that swore allegiance to the Wen sect, in keeping with Wen Ruohan’s preference for his own people above anyone else, but her mother was a branch cousin of the Jin sect and everyone said that it was obviously meant as a way to bind the sects together. They said Wen Ruohan had spoken openly of his desire for sons – as usual, no one mentioned the names of those of his descendants already in his sect’s memorial hall – and that there were high hopes associated with the union on both sides. The Jin sect was said to be already parading around the marriage as their newest political victory, trying to use the connection to their best advantage.

“How long has this been planned, do you think?” Lan Qiren asked Lan Yueheng, mostly out of lack of other people to ask; unsurprisingly, Lan Yueheng shrugged.

“It’s an engagement,” he said disinterestedly. “My cousin says the negotiations for an engagement can be as long or as short as everyone wants it. But surely no one would make a lifetime decision like that lightly? Not to mention an alliance between sects, however implicit. It must have been planned a long time ago.”

Lan Qiren wasn’t so sure. There was always the ambiguous situation between Wen Ruohan and Lao Nie to consider, and given the way Lao Nie had spoken during his visit, it sounded as if he had encouraged Wen Ruohan to come up with some clever way out of the situation, rather than suggesting that one already existed.

Moreover, he wasn’t sure that Wen Ruohan considered a marriage to be a lifetime decision. Hadn’t he been married before, had sons before? It was only that they had all died…

“Lan-er-gongzi!” A runner came up to him, saluting. “The Sect Leader asks that you report to the hanshi at once.”

“That’s probably your invitation,” Lan Yueheng said, sounding mildly disapproving – undoubtedly he thought weddings were a waste of time compared with doing experiments. Taking inspiration from his work with Lan Qiren in merging math and music, he’d recently expanded his interests from mathematics to alchemy, and Lan Qiren grimly foresaw many exploding furnaces in the Lan sect’s immediate future. At least they had some out-of-the-way places for him to work, or else there'd also be a lot of punishments for violating the rules about too much noise in Lan Yueheng's personal future. “It’ll probably make you miss the first week of this season’s classes, too…well, try not to be too bored.”

Sadly, Lan Qiren did not think being bored would be an option.

Sure enough, when he arrived at the hanshi where his father and brother were waiting alongside several sect elders, the subject of discussion was the invitation he had received to attend the wedding.

“As Sect Leader Wen’s sworn brother, naturally you must attend,” his brother told him. “We will also be sending a delegation from the Lan sect to attend on our behalf officially, but your position is different. You must be careful not to offend anyone.”

Lan Qiren saluted. “I will do my best.”

“Sect Leader Wen will not be kind if you lose face for him, especially at his wedding, even if it is inadvertent - or even if what you do is perfectly correct by our standards,” one of the other elders, one of the older teachers, the well-respected if sleepy one, said. He sounded concerned on Lan Qiren's behalf, which Lan Qiren appreciated. “You must especially take care not to offend his new bride. Even where the marriage is made for the purpose of power and there is no expectation of love, a man does not like to have disturbances in his back courtyard.”

“Especially if the stories are true and Sect Leader Wen hopes for sons,” the teacher in swordsmanship responded, his voice a little acidic. He was still unhappy with Lan Qiren over what had happened during their visit to the Nightless City; Lan Qiren did his best to avoid him whenever possible. “I doubt Sect Leader Wen will persist in trying to raise one of our children once he has one of his own.”

That explained the sour expressions on the faces of his brother and some of the elders, Lan Qiren thought. They had hoped to use him to manipulate Wen Ruohan, though the exact method of how they would have done so escaped him no matter how he analyzed the words he had overheard that night in the hanshi, and Wen Ruohan had neatly evaded their snare with a countermove of his own – as with weiqi, so with politics, he assumed. A disappointment, as always.

“A brotherhood is for life,” Lan Qiren’s father said, voice distant as always, neutral as always. “There are ten months at minimum before any son is born, and all the years after; even if Sect Leader Wen forgets about his obligations, that does not mean that we must. There will be other opportunities.”

“Provided Qiren does not provide grounds for Sect Leader Wen to abjure the relationship,” his brother interjected.

“I will try my best not to do so,” Lan Qiren said again, stiff as always, though he suspected his brother was simply stating a fact rather than casting doubt on him. “When should I prepare myself to depart?”

“The delegation leaves tomorrow morning,” his brother said. “You will need to give a personal gift to your sworn brother in addition to the sect’s gift. I have selected several options; come with me to pick the one you prefer.”

Lan Qiren saluted the elders and wordlessly followed his brother to the treasury. He liked none of the gifts his brother had selected, thinking that they all seemed a bit too gaudy even for a recipient whose tastes tended toward the luxurious – a bit more Lanling Jin than Qishan Wen, and not at all something he would select for himself – but eventually he chose a heavy golden crown that seemed to be not too far from the ones that he’d seen Wen Ruohan wear in the past.

“Not the dagger?” his brother asked, his voice thick with irony that Lan Qiren did not understand, nodding towards another of the options, a golden-hilt blade so purely polished that one could see their reflection in it.

“Sect Leader Wen has a rich collection which we cannot hope to match,” Lan Qiren said, thinking of those peerless treasure swords rusting away as wall decorations in Wen Ruohan’s bedroom. “Moreover, it’s a wedding, which represents two parts joining together into a single whole, while a gift of a knife implies severing. It is therefore inappropriate for such an occasion.”

“Brothers who have shared blood cannot be separated. It is a suitable gift from a sworn brother.”

Lan Qiren looked down at the options, feeling a little helpless. “If you would like me to change my selection…”

“The guan is fine,” his brother said, and shook his head, seeming almost a little pitying. “You are very good to be concerned with your sworn brother’s feelings, no matter how your relationship came about. Too much goodness can be seen as weakness, you know.”

I thought I wasn’t supposed to be making trouble? Lan Qiren thought to himself. Still, since his brother did not seem inclined to elaborate, he handed the gift to one of the servants to be put into an appropriate box.

In actuality, he had already selected a personal gift of his own, shortly after he had first heard about the impending wedding – it had seemed reasonable that he would need to send a gift, even if he didn't expect to actually be invited, and it had not occurred to him that he would be allowed to utilize the sect treasury for such a thing. He’d gone to Caiyi Town and purchased a small set of drinking bowls, applying the glaze himself as the artisan spun the pots; they had gone into the kiln immediately thereafter, and he was expecting the delivery today – in fact, it was probably already waiting in his room.

He would pack the set up with his personal items and give it to Wen Ruohan anyway, he decided. After all, he’d opted to do the design in Wen sect red rather than Lan sect blue, rendering it useless for his own purposes, and it would be worse to simply throw it away or to let it sit and gather dust. Being frugal is a virtue, after all.

Of course, if he were truly being frugal, he would have told his brother that he did not need an additional gift and left the guan alone, but he didn’t want to reject his brother’s kindness, either, rare as it was. Better to just eat the loss of the funds and have Wen Ruohan think him a spendthrift…

“Sect Leader Wen will undoubtedly have you stay in the Sun Palace during your visit,” his brother said abruptly, and Lan Qiren looked at him: his brother wasn’t looking at him, but into the distance, and his fingers twitched at his side in an uncharacteristic display of nervousness. “As his sworn brother, it would be inappropriate for him to put you in the guest quarters, or to fail to allow you free mobility through the Nightless City.”

“That seems likely,” Lan Qiren agreed hesitantly, not sure why his brother was mentioning it.

“He is fortunate that you are not naturally observant,” his brother said. “Otherwise one might fear that you would use the opportunity to learn more about how the Wen sect works – its treasures, its secrets. Its plans for the future.”

“Oh, I wouldn’t do that,” Lan Qiren said quickly. “Have courtesy and integrity, after all. Even if I were to discover something incidentally, naturally I would be honor-bound not to share it without informing Sect Leader Wen that I had done so.”

His brother sighed, his fingers abruptly unclenching. “Of course you would. How could anyone doubt it…I don’t suppose you’ve ever given any thought to Do not forget the grace of your forefathers?”

“Of course I have. That’s one of the fundamental rules,” Lan Qiren said, now absolutely bewildered. “That we should live up to the expectations of our ancestors, both in our good conduct and discipline, and in supporting our sect so that our descendants may honor them equally.”

His brother shook his head. “Sometimes I really don’t understand you. You were tricked into an oath like a virgin maiden into a sweet-talker’s bed, weren't you?” he said. Lan Qiren really didn’t understand how his brother’s mind worked that he kept changing subjects like this. “I just wonder that you aren’t more resentful of the one that did it, the way anyone else would be. The way you act, you’d think Sect Leader Wen had done you a favor; you’re so considerate of him.”

Lan Qiren thought his brother might be being sarcastic, but he wasn’t very good at determining such things. “Even if the manner in which we became sworn brothers was unorthodox, the oaths have still been sworn,” he said, a little haltingly. “I cannot control his actions, only my own. Just because he might not be a good brother doesn’t mean I can’t be – isn’t that right?”

His brother glared at him. “If you have something to say, Qiren, you can say it directly.”

Lan Qiren was at an utter loss. “I – was?”

“Your teachers say that you’re brilliant,” his brother said, voice suddenly very cold. “I often wonder whether they’re not growing too old for their work.”

“I don’t –”

“Never mind. You’re dismissed.”

Lan Qiren saluted and returned to his quarters, puzzling over the conversation as he packed away his things for the trip. Was his brother trying to warn him against anyone encouraging him to act as a spy? Or was he trying to convince him to act as a spy himself? But if it was the latter, why wouldn’t he just say so? If it were truly necessary for some reason, for the good of the sect…

Was he supposed to volunteer?

But that would be truly breaking the oath of brotherhood – of which he still didn’t know the contents…

Lan Qiren supposed that, at least, was one thing he would be able to fix: very soon, he would be seeing his sworn brother again for the first time since they’d sworn their oaths.

Maybe he’d find a way to ask.

#mdzs #lan qiren #qingheng-jun #my fic #my fics #spilled pearls

107 notes · View notes

der-unverantwortliche · 4 years

Link

If we don't confront China immediately they're going to attack Pearl Harbour, invade the West Coast, and stop us from importing 9 million Indian coders who depress salaries for American programmers. Why do you hate America?

We seem to share some concerns with the way the American right has come to frame the China problem. It used to be that emphasizing the threat of China was a great way to deflect from the Russia hysteria and, to a certain extent, the obsession with Iran and the Middle East. In that sense the China issue had a sort of second-order, proxy value. Now that just about everyone including the most die-hard neocons like Nikki Haley have jumped onto the China Hawk bandwagon, the position has lost much if not all of its second-order signalling power.

I fear that now much of the Cold War style China Hawk rhetoric actually detracts from the much more pressing threat to the American people which is the incompetent, corrupt, dysfunctional and perhaps even illegitimate ruling class.

Of course, one can combine China-hawkishness with a critique of the American ruling class by saying that the American ruling class cooperates with the CCP. But even here the emphasis must be squarely on the American ruling class and in practice this often gets drowned out in the performative saber-rattling you hear from a lot of conservative China Hawks.

I'll put it this way: It is not as though the American ruling class is intelligent, competent, and patriotic on most important matters and happens to have a glaring blind spot when it comes to appreciating the threat of China. If this were the case, it would make sense to emphasize the threat of China above all else.

But this is not the case. The American ruling class has failed on pretty much every issue of significance for the past several decades. If China were to disappear, they would simply be selling out the country to India, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, or some other country (in fact they are doing this just to a lesser extent). Our ruling class has failed us on China because they have failed us on everything. For this reason I believe that there will be no serious, sound policy on China that benefits Americans until there is a legitimate ruling class in the United States. For this reason pointing fingers at the wickedness and danger of China is less useful than emphasizing the failure of the American ruling class. The bottom line is the true enemies of the American people are no foreign nation or adversary---the true enemy of the American people are the people who control America.

This way of thinking points to a dilemma for the American ruling class. Contrary to a lot of the rhetoric you hear, much of the American ruling class, including the "deep state" is actually quite anti-China. To fully account for this would take longer than I have here. But the nutshell intuitive explanation is that the ruling class, particularly Wall Street, was happy for the past several decades to enrich both themselves and China by destroying the American working class with policies such as "free-trade" and outsourcing. But in many ways the milk from that teat is no more, and now you have an American ruling class much more concerned about protecting their loot from a serious geopolitical competitor (China) than squeezing out the last few drops of milk from the "free trade."

Of course, different factions of the American elite still have different attitudes toward China---with Wall Street still being the most favourable and the military industrial complex being the most hostile. The point though is that the American power structure gets that conflict with China over resources, 5G, AI, etc. is baked into the cake. The problem is that America has become such a dysfunctional joke in so many ways that it is hard to imagine it competing with an ascendant and serious China. And this brings us to the dilemma I alluded to earlier: the American ruling class wants to confront China to preserve its loot, but the ability to confront China in a serious way would itself require such dramatic domestic reform within America that this would threaten the very power structure whose loot is supposed to be preserved!

This bizarre dilemma I think is at the heart of our ambiguous and half-assed approach to China---we'd rather whine about Uighurs and call the Chinese racists, which simply reinforces the fundamental unseriousness that makes the prospect of beating out China in the long term seem rather bleak.

But China is buying up land all over the USA. How dare they buy land that is offered to them? The Japanese were buying up all sorts of US land in the 1980s and it led to WW2 in the Pacific.

As Donald Trump famously said "someone's doing the raping." In this case it's our own politicians selling out the country for embarrassingly unambitious sums (adding insult to injury). I blame the American ruling class for selling out the American people before I blame the Chinese doing what is best for China.

Is there a possible and responsible foreign policy that works for the average American citizen and not for giant US corporations?

This is a good question which points to a very uncomfortable position we find ourselves in, at least in America. There is an increasing disconnect between America's stature on the geopolitical stage and superpower status and the well-being of actual Americans. What good does it do for America to remain globally dominant when all this translates to is preserving the spoils system for Jeffry Epstein's buddies and a bunch of multinational corporations that hate Americans anyway?

From the standpoint of liberty and freedom, one might even argue that geopolitical multi-polarity is a desirable thing. Free-speech doesn't really exist in either China or the United States, but both nations have very different taboos. Multi-polarity in this sense at least allows one to arbitrage these different taboos and have on net better implications for the dissemination of ideas compared to a situation in which either China or the United States effectively reigned over everything. I don't want a situation in which you can't criticize the CCP anywhere on earth; and I don't want a situation in which you can't criticize tranny bathrooms, Black Lives Matter or whatever the latest nonsense is the US State Department is shoving down people's throats.

(Agree completely, realistic apprehension of actual rivalry with China is obviously necessary, preferably with a minimum of cringe moral indignation, but must not entail a rallying around the flag/a putting aside of differences with the filth. Ideally neither, but at the limit, liever Turks dan Paaps.)

#china

8 notes · View notes

ghoultyrant · 4 years

Text

Dicing characters up

So I’ve recently gotten back into the swing of developing The Wild Hunt, in between puking and other such happy fun times, and of course I ran into the issue of needing to generate original capes. I moaned, I groaned, I made minor notes about general direction, resigning myself to further massive delays in the writing process because making a properly Worm-like power is actually pretty hard-

-and then I abruptly remembered that I actually have an established process for how to do so, and just haven’t used it in a couple of years for various reasons. And lo, this piece of the writing is coming along much faster and more fun.

Then it occurred to me that I could share this process, and explain the reasoning behind it. Maybe others will appreciate it.

Which brings us to now.

First step: write up all twelve canon Worm power ratings. Or I suppose you could use a different system, such as my own stab at making the rating system function, but the canon set is perfectly fine for this purpose. (I’d only personally turn to my own system if I noticed I’d completely failed to make any Othala-esque support capes in a long streak, and felt that was a problem that needed correcting) The order doesn’t matter, you can do whatever in this regard, just make sure you write up the list you’re using first.

Step 1.5: Decide whether you want rolling high to be ‘good’, or rolling low to be ‘good’. I’ll explain this in a minute, but it’s important you do this before you actually roll any dice. Which direction you choose is irrelevant’ I historically went with low=good, and this last session went with high=good, for whatever arcane reasons my brain changes its mind about such things, and it all works out the same so long as you’re consistent within a given session.

Step 1.75: If you’re making multiple characters together, decide ahead of time which set of rolls will ultimately go to which character. ie ‘this is Parahuman 1, so they get Dice Roll Set 1′. Or ‘this is Angry Parahuman, and they get Dice Roll Set 2′. Don’t do all your dice rolling and then assign batches to whoever you prefer. I’ll explain this more later.

Second step: roll an appropriate number of dice. I personally use this site, but it’s not terribly important. My personal model is to roll 12 100-sided dice; this gives a level of granularity and randomness I find useful.

Third step: Plug the die rolls into your list in the order you made each. Your first die roll goes into whatever power rating you placed first in the order, your second die roll goes into whatever rating was second, and so on. No cheating; I’ll come back to this in a minute.

Fourth step: It’s time to engage in deduction about the character you’ve kind-of-created just now. Treat your die rolls as a combination of two things; an indication of how the PRT would rate them, if they know everything reasonably obvious about their power, but also more importantly as an indication of how relatively dominant each element is in their power.

This is the part where actual creativity is involved, and I’m not going to tell you there’s any ‘right’ way of doing things in this regard, beyond that I’ve been emphasizing ‘don’t cheat’ by shuffling rolls about in any capacity, or allowing yourself to assign rolls after they’re made. The reason I’ve been emphasizing ‘don’t cheat’ is that you’re undermining your own creativity if you ‘cheat’; if you have an Angry Cape in your list of tentative characters, and you find yourself prone to doing stuff like giving Angry Capes Blaster powers that are all variations on ‘elemental blasts’, ‘cheating’ means you’re liable to fall right back into that pattern (Or any number of other patterns you’re trying to avoid falling into) instead of forcing yourself to think outside the box. At which point this whole complicated shebang is a waste of your time, honestly.

Now that’s all a bit abstract, so let’s provide an example! Just one cape, even though I really use this system primarily for producing batches of capes, because this is already going to be long and I don’t have infinite time.

Before I start, I’ll arbitrary say this example cape is meant to be a low-tier villain cape in Brockton Bay who Coil recently hired in an imaginary fanfic due to butterfly shenanigans. I’ll also arbitrarily say I vaguely want this cape to think Coil is a great guy, so I have some starting point of a personality beyond the range of possibilities implied by being a Coil hire.

So first I’ll write up the list of ratings;

Brute:

Blaster:

Breaker:

Trump:

Striker:

Stranger:

Changer:

Master:

Mover:

Shaker:

Thinker:

Tinker:

I wrote that off the cuff off memory, for reference.

Before rolling my dice, I’m just arbitrarily saying high is good.

Then I roll my dice...

90 - 45 - 97 - 56 - 8 - 48 - 20 - 94 - 23 - 88 - 46 - 74

... and what I’d normally do is just enter those in order in the above list, but for the purposes of this example I’ll instead enter them into a new copy of the list right after this sentence.

Brute: 90

Blaster: 45

Breaker: 97

Trump: 56

Striker: 8

Stranger: 48

Changer: 20

Master: 94

Mover: 23

Shaker: 88

Thinker: 46

Tinker: 74

So first I note the extremes: whatever this cape can do, they’re not a Striker. And if there’s any Mover or Changer elements, they’re really low-key, the sort of thing that would get a PRT threat rating of 1 if they made it into documentation at all.

At the other extreme, Breaker is the highest number, followed closely by Master, Brute, and Shaker, in that order. That implies Breaker is the foundation of this cape’s power (In the framework of ‘Breaker states’, to be specific; if you take a different interpretation of Breaker, you’d interpret this differently), with them either having all their states include Brute/Master/Shaker elements, or that their most powerful/useful states are the ones that merit those ratings.

Tinker is also pretty high up, but not the highest up. If it were the highest rating, I’d probably interpret the cape as a Tinker whose devices all come back to breaker effects in some capacity. Since it’s the lowest of the relatively high ratings, I instead infer the Tinkering is somehow an outgrowth of the Breaker rating; maybe they have a state that can copy tinkertech?

That brings us to the middling ratings of Blaster, Stranger, Trump, and Thinker. These are all high enough I’m not willing to write them off as non-existent qualities, but they’re low enough relative to the main high numbers that they’re clearly not of primary importance, either being not distinct powers at all but a side effect of the primary aspects of their power, or being distinct powers that are weak or inflexible such that the cape doesn’t make much use of them. In this case, the high Brute rating suggests the Blaster rating may simply be an acknowledgement that super-strength is a great tool for turning anything in your environment into an impromptu projectile.

Taken altogether, what comes to mind is that Coil Patsy here has a Breaker state they can turn on that lets them suborn people in an area around them while also making them fairly resistant to harm. At this point I interpret the low Mover number not as, for example, ‘Mover 1′, which would be an indication of mildly superhuman speed or super-jumping or something, but instead as an indication that the Breaker state involves a loss of mobility, which in conjunction with the high Brute rating suggests their Breaker state is something solid and slow, such as turning into solid iron. Said aura of control makes it so everyone in their control is capable of low-tier Tinkering, with the overall versatility and quality of the tinkertech rising the more people in their control are working together. The Trump rating is now obvious; actual Tinkers can be tapped for their full Tinker ability, spontaneously providing this cape brand-new options if they get a Tinker under their control. The Blaster rating is now interpreted as an indication they have a propensity for producing tinkertech rifles and other ranged weaponry, which their thralls use reasonably competently, but which are not stupendously threatening. The Thinker rating is interpreted as an indication they tap the senses of their thralls. The Stranger rating seems to require inventing a new power or major Tinkertech specialty in the context of how canon Worm uses the Stranger rating, but here I lean on the advantages ambiguity provides and choose, in this case, to interpret the Stranger rating as indicating that any signs of control are subtle enough Coil Patsy can have eyes on the inside without people noticing if stringent Master/Stranger protocols aren’t in effect.

By blind coincidence, this cape sounds like a really plausible explanation for where canon Coil got his tinkertech underslung lasers. (That never actually got used...) So now I know that in my imaginary fanfic, this cape is supposed to exist in canon and in canon was hired to make some underslung lasers, but the fanfic’s butterflies led to Coil working to get this cape in his pocket in a more substantial way. I also now know that my original arbitrary decision to make him a fan of Coil indicates Coil used the carrot, rather than the stick, as part of the recruitment process; where Tattletale was recruited with a gun to her head, this cape was recruited by Coil solving his problems and throwing wads of cash at him to do the same basic kind of thing he wants to do anyway.

Now, this sounds like a pretty powerful power, which might seem inconsistent with my earlier arbitrary assertion that Coil Patsy is a low-tier villain, but I can take the interpretation that, yes, it is a strong power, but the cape has been lying low in part because creating a long-term operation is insanely risky. At this step I assume he suffers Thinker headaches if he runs his Breaker state for too long, and that his thralls all remember what happened just fine and are liable to hate his guts and try to kill him once he ends the state, in the scenario where he uses his power to gangpress random citizens; he’s been low-tier because it’s dangerous for him to try to freely abuse his power...

... but for this imaginary fanfic, he’s probably about to turn into a big threat as Coil hires a bunch of people to act as his intermittent Tinker thralls.

From there I do more standard character creation stuff of deciding on his basic personality (And gender, for that matter, though apparently at some point I decided he was male without thinking about it in this particular case), assigning a name and possibly cape name to him, and then put a pin on it and am now free to go forward with writing scenes with this character.

And there you go; a methodology for pushing yourself to come up with weird, creative power sets.

#Worm #Story Design #Randomness #Fanfic

11 notes · View notes

cactusnotes · 5 years

Text

Ethical Egoism

Normative, Teleological, Subjective, Agent-Focused Ethical Theory. “Psychological Egoism is a theory of human nature that purports to describe what motivates people to act. Ethical egoism...is normative. It purports to well us how people ought to act.” - Driver

Agent focused ethic based on self-interest as opposed to altruism: altruism is the attitude of acting for the sake of others, egoism is based on self-interest. Ethical egoism is the act of being rationally selfish, as it’s our purpose for the long term.

In fact, using reason, it is clear our telos is our own interest: denying your own needs isn’t just. It rejects deontology, since laws restrict our own needs, and psychological egoism. It does not matter whether we are all intrinsically egotistical, we have to act so, it’s our telos.

Ethical theory that matches the moral agent's psychological state (psychological egoism): the belief that every action is rooted in one’s own self interest, makes one happy, to avoid pain. It’s not inherently negative or bad--nobody has to be ruthless and cruel, just not selfless. Furthermore, selfish lacks real meaning. A social construct, motives, actual acts, avoiding worse?We cannot truly judge one’s motives, so it’s unfalsifiable, thus not a real science to some. However, psychological is different to ethical, as it supports things like short term interest: drinking alcohol.

Concentration on long term self-interests rather than short term interests: in the short term unselfishness could lead to longer term selfishness satisfied. This thus rejects material gain, and pure selfishness (contributing to a union of egoists).

Max Stirner, is self-interest the root cause of every human action even if it appears altruistic: inspired by Hegel, his quiet life didn’t reflect chaotic writing. Influenced: Nietzsche, Marx, anarchy.

Psychological egoism is correct to an extent: some ethical decisions are made in self interest. However, we don’t know what the self is, so we cannot seek self-interest actively, it’s ambiguous. Someone who feels they are a slave, and are obliged to act as such, are not being themselves. Actions done with the idea that there is no other option (actually or metaphorically) are not self.

Language and rationality are human inventions that haunt and restrict their maker, the maker lost. Religious, philosophical systems of ethics and instinct are ‘essences’ and ‘ghosts’ in our decisions.

Einzige = the ego.

“There is no sinner and no sinful egoism” - Stirner.

Actual egoism exists outside of the systems we are slaves to, once we have found out ‘ownness’.

Our telos is to gain mastery over our owness and live through this ‘unique’ self we have.

“Totally different from this free thinking is own thinking, my thinking, a thinking which does not guide me, but is guided, continued, or broken off, by me at my pleasure.” - Stirner.

These structures are deeply integrated into us, seen in fears of nakedness, naturalness, selfishness. Institutions cannot be good in themselves, we must discover our ‘self’ which will say what’s right. They probably aren’t right though, as they hinder self development, and enforce rules. Philosophers aren’t exempt--they reject God but follow his laws? Agree incest is wrong?

“I decided whether it is the right thing in me; there is no right outside of this” - Stirner.

Analogy: giving to the hopeless, party psychological egoism, partly social expectations, guilt. However, there are charities for the homeless, so we don’t need to do it, we were reluctant to do it.

Stirner is not amoral, he rejects institutions, and we need to select our own laws from them.

“Do not seek for freedom...seek for yourself...just recognise what you really are, and let go of your hypocritical endeavours, your foolish mania to be something else than you are.” - Stirner.

Eigenheit is ownness, different from the perceived self, is the idea of mastering oneself. To be free includes rejecting the subconscious ideals, ideologies, religious or philosophical concepts. Only this way can you pursue, selfishly.

“He is an unfree man in the garment of freedom” - Stirner.

Owness is a descriptor, not an idea (like religion and morality) but leads to ideas like freedom.

“What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I am my own concern, and I am neither good nor bad.” - Stirner.

Einzig is uniqueness. To appreciate yourself is ownness; to apply owness is to become unique. You are the only person who owns your ‘self’, which means you are unique!

“Egoism does not think of sacrificing anything...it simply decides what I want I must have.” - Stirner.

If everyone was unique, it doesn’t make everyone equal, equality is an enslaving ideology. Nor are people unequal, rather they are all unique, individual, incomparable or able to be equated.

He uses the analogy of the Protestant reformation: meant to reduce control, and inspire individual faith, but instead made more things religious, like priests marrying, and intensified internal conflict.

If you voted for a rule, you’re free to break it, so not to be bound by “my will of yesterday”.

Stirner’s view of love is kind of dodgy, where it is only when you ‘enjoy’ the other person: not love.

“We are all in the midst of an abundance; now shall I not help myself?” - Stirner, meaning unknown.

Rejection of egoism for material gain:

Sensual appetites are also rejected by the self, or else the self has an obligation, an emotional attachment, a link to society’s expectations. You serve your future, act in a way that’s genuinely good for yourself, or else you're not an egoist, which rejects material gain.

Union of egoists:

There is no obligation to be equal, but also no obligation to be cruel, materialistic, or anarchist.

Stirner advocated for co-operation between egos, not to own each other, but for practicality.

The sole purpose of a community like this, a union of egoists, is to help people find their selves.

This union is a society where cooperation prevailed in recognition of everyone's uniqueness.

It is true, honest, respectful, impermanent, supportive of all goals, with no goal in the union itself.

It has no actual authority of value, it is a co-worker of autonomy. A support system, not actual.

Stirner sees no need to reject the state, but believes it will fall away naturally for this union.

Destruction of a community ethos:

Society weakens if there is no common good produced. But if everyone’s happy...who cares? It may lead to anarchy and social chaos, as if the union of egoists doesn’t exist and we’re all beasts. There’s no security to fulfil our own self interest, which goes against its own ideas. But that’s what the Union is for.

Social injustices could occur as individuals put their own interests first:

Some could argue that rape, racism and conflict are allowed as it is satisfying for the person. However, this is inherently short term, and takes away other’s own fulfilment of self interest. It doesn’t matter to him, his audience’s feelings are of no issue. He does not condemn the widow who strangles her infant, incest, murder, and the like, which could all be justified.

A form of bigotry (why is one moral agent more important than any other?):

Prioritising yourself is wrong, selfish, and discrimination of others. However, the alternative is you prioritise others, which is also bigotry, as you downplay your own relevance, discriminating against yourself.

Furthermore, focusing on yourself isn’t inherently selfish or discrimination: focusing on art doesn’t discriminate against science. Our world is literally ourselves, it’s only rational to do so. We cannot confirm anything outside ourselves, so why should we focus on the uncertain over certain?

How can one fulfil or find themselves if they’re subject to prejudice, bigotry, or clashing interest? However, that is their own fault, for not escaping their society’s opinion, so they pay the price.

#Religion and Philosophy / Cactus #Ethics / Cactus #Ethical Thought / Cactus #Max Stirner #Egoism

2 notes · View notes

speakingformyself101-blog · 5 years

Text

The Death of a Friend

‘Death waits for no man’- Markus Zusak

You can never prepare yourself for death. He doesn’t wait until you’re ready, he could care less about your last goodbyes. It doesn’t matter if your good or bad, young or old, death is indiscriminate by nature. Death waits for no man, and he certainly didn’t wait for my friend Joe, who died before he could truly live.

I first met Joe after packing my bags and flying to China with dreams of becoming a teacher. Having arrived at the school a day before me, Joe and I became fast friends; both from England, freshly graduated, and severely out of our element, we found comfort in the familiarity of each other. Genuine and uncomplicated, the friendship blossomed over our shared endeavour to navigate the unknown. Eventually more friends were added on, and we established our own little squad, unbreakable and ready to take on whatever China could throw at us. We laughed together, celebrated each other’s achievements, and provided a shoulder to cry on.

Grief had always been an ambiguous concept to me; never having lost someone I was close to before, my experience and understanding of it derived primarily from TV. This ultimately made it difficult for me to empathise with others, and aside from the customary “I’m sorry for your loss”, my thoughts didn’t venture much further than that. That’s not to say I was some sort of emotionless psychopath, of course I sympathised for those going though such tragedy; believe me when I tell you I was a blubbering wreck for the full 2 hours of P.S. I Love You. But my emotions always had a shallowness to them, which eventually shifted to scepticism. Too often when I witnessed grief on TV it seemed exaggerated to me; the heartache taken and twisted into a caricature-esque illustration of its original self. I looked at it as an over-saturation of real-life, reserved for the big screen to justify drawn-out movie sequences where the main character screams and rages of the injustice of it all while melancholic piano plays softly in the background

It was only after experiencing grief personally that I realised wherein my derision lied. Oftentimes movies and TV shows will portray a character in denial or anger, but fail to show the mental journey that has taken place within the character’s mind to lead them there. Subsequently, to someone ignorant of the psychological proceedings that occurs internally when processing the death of a loved one, it can seem as if these reactions simply manifest out of thin air, with no rhyme or reason to them. Though I can only speak for myself, this failing stripped the emotions of its sincerity, making it harder to empathise with.

‘We begin to live again, but we cannot do so until we have given grief its time.’- Kubler Ross’s ‘The 5 Stages of Grief’ (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance)

In Kubler Ross’s ‘The 5 Stages of Grief’ (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance) he discusses the mental dealings behind the core emotions we feel while grieving, including its reason, importance to the grieving process, and how we move past it. He emphasises that ‘there is not a typical response to loss as there is no typical loss. Our grief is as individual as our lives’. My experience with grief was similar to others in many ways, yet personal disposition, circumstances, and the nature of our friendship meant that my understanding and relationship with grief was wholly my own.

‘This first stage of grieving helps us to survive the loss’

When I first heard the news from a friend over the phone, I was in another country at the time. My denial didn’t manifest in the form of ‘I can’t believe this has happened’ but rather ‘I don’t believe this has happened’. What I mean by this is that, it’s not that I couldn’t accept the truth, but that I actively choose not to. It created a divide in my head, deep down I was aware that I was only lying to myself, but I did it anyway because there was no other option for me at that point. I did whatever I could to strengthen this pipe dream; I told myself that my friend sounded too composed over the phone (he was in shock), that it was just some sick prank they were playing, that motorcycle accidents don’t happen to 21-year-old’s who haven’t even been given the chance to live yet. Me and Joe worked together, and I remember checking the work chat every day thinking that until they make an announcement, there’s still a chance it’s all fake. The physical distance between me and Joe made it so much easier to create a mental distance between myself and the truth. It became a case of seeing is believing, and until someone could provide me with physical evidence of his death, I would carry on this ruse.

During my young teens, I was a sucker for the so-called ‘Girl Power’ storyline. Movies that pitted the strong-willed wall-flower against the sheltered and bird-brained female antagonist was my bread and butter. I had always envisioned myself as that strong-willed wallflower, a survivor at the core who could face whatever life throws at her head on, as if anything less would be a weakness. I grew to realise how utterly delusional of a mind-set that was, and appreciate the importance of allowing yourself to be emotionally vulnerable. However with all that said, it still makes me feel awkward to this day when I look back on my reaction to first hearing the news and think about how delusional I must have appeared to others. Eventually you just have to accept that, as Kubler- Ross states: ‘There is a grace in denial’, it is not a weakness one has to overcome, but rather a coping mechanism that allows us to handle only what we can.

‘Anger is the emotion we are most used to managing’

When I returned home, I could no longer deny what was right in front of me any longer; I could see my friend’s absence, and so I was forced to believe it. It was at this point when the beginnings of anger started to kick in. There was no clean-cut shift from denial to anger, one emotional state didn’t suddenly swoop in and knock the other off its pedestal. In his essay, Kubler emphasises that there is no ‘linear timeline in grief’. In my case, anger was born from my denial, it stemmed from no longer being able to keep denying what was now undisputable. I started to project this anger onto other people, getting annoyed when they openly discussed the details of what happened at work. What is there to talk about? He's gone, where was everyone constantly shoving the fact down my throat? To this day I still don’t know the full story of the accident because I was so against discussing it. All I wanted to do was bury my head in the sand, and it seemed like no one was going to let me do it in peace.

My anger started to turn ugly, I remember seeing a post someone made about how much Joe meant to them and thinking: why would you post this? You weren’t even that close to him? It felt disingenuous, like suddenly people were popping up out of the woodworks to add their two cents and make it all about them. I saw this attitude reflected in others around me, the occasional sly comment, a judgemental pause of silence, as if because you were closer to Joe it allowed you to police how others grieve and to what degree.

*Dusts off psychology A-level certificate*

Building any kind of relationship as a foreigner in China is a social experiment in its own right. Unable to communicate with the locals, unfamiliar of the cultural norms, and oftentimes going days without seeing an foreigner you haven’t already met, you begin to heavily rely upon the few friends you do make in China. Add on to this a 6-hour time differences and the Great VPN Firewall of China restricting accessibility to family and friends back home, you find yourself living in a social bubble. This same isolationism can be seen in reality shows like Love Island and Big Brother, which force their contestants into environments with little to no outside communication. The resulting effects is that relationships, both romantic and platonic, develop at an abnormally fast rate; it made the few months that I knew Joe much more potent than was normal. In such a short space of time Joe had carved a space for himself in my life: he was a colleague, friend, and brother all rolled into one. If I was stressed over something I came to him, if I was proud of something I came to him. But this still didn’t change the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, we were only a chapter in each-others stories, and so when it came to mourning his death, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy and guilt began to emerge.

In the same way that I judged others, I was judging myself. I began to question the validity of my own feelings, whether the short time I knew him justified such strong heartache or if I, like so many of the movies I watched before, simply up-playing a role I thought was appropriate. Did I deserve to feel so sad over someone I barely knew? Who was I to have enjoyed his last few months on earth while his family and lifelong friends couldn’t. When I was sat next to his family at the funeral, I felt like an imposter.

‘Acceptance is often confused with the notion of being “all right” or “OK” with what has happened’-Kübler-Ross & David Kessler

I wish someone had told me beforehand that acceptance does not always equal peace, sometimes it just leads to more heartache and depression. The comforting warmth of denial and distracting heat of anger had been rudely ripped away and what am I left with now? The cold hard truth, what a scam.

Accepting that my friend was gone didn’t suddenly make it easier to digest, if anything it made me question everything. Though it seems obvious, it wasn’t his death that was the hardest to grasp, it was the idea that he no longer existed, or at least not in the way he once did.

Kubler describes this stage as ‘accepting the reality that our loved one is physically gone and recognizing that this new reality is the permanent reality’. In the end, no matter what you believe, notions about an afterlife are all well and good, but it doesn’t change the fact that those passed are no longer in the here and now. How can a walking, talking person, with their own thoughts and dreams for the future, now simply be food for worms? How can someone who was previously physical only now exist in the memories of others? I didn’t want the responsibility of keeping someone alive through only my mind and a few pictures.

‘‘There is not a typical response to loss as there is no typical loss. Our grief is as individual as our lives’

If there is one thing I took away from this experience, it’s the understanding that grieving is a fiercely personal act, idiosyncratic to the individual. I witnessed friends who cried for weeks on end after hearing the news, while others did so only once. I saw friends find comfort in the company of others, and those who found peace through solitude. Some gained a stronger relationship with God, whereas some started to question everything that they once believed. I realised that the cause behind my judgement of all these tv shows was the same thing that made me condemn those who posted their feelings on social media: I am a very private person, and so these open displays of emotion didn’t relate to me. That’s not to say that I didn’t feel the exact same emotions as everyone else did, but when it comes to my emotions, I’m an introvert at heart. I don’t post my feelings on social media, I rarely cry in front of others, and big public displays of affection only make me cringe. If given the option, I will always choose to implode than explode. This ultimately lead me to my third and final revelation: Everyone grieves in their own way, there is no right, cookie-cutter, one size fits all way to grieve. In the end, it doesn’t matter how you grieve or how long for, it’s about allowing yourself to experience the emotion and working through it to one day achieve some form of equilibrium to this new reality. It’s a journey we all must walk, and one we can only do ourselves.

For anyone who is currently dealing with death for the first time, here are a few websites where you can find support:

https://www.supportline.org.uk/problems/bereavement/

https://www.cruse.org.uk/get-help/helpline

https://www.itv.com/thismorning/bereavement-helplines

#death #grief #friend #loss #mourning #5 stages of grief #five stages of grief

2 notes · View notes

mammyhug · 5 years

Text

10 naive questions about cashmere and professional responses to them

Everyone who at least once wore a cashmere sweater will be able to confirm: the material simply does not exist softer and more pleasant. Cashmere is a synonym for comfort, warmth and pleasant sensations when worn, and contrary to popular belief - not only in winter. This material owes its name to the Indian state of Kashmir, where, as legend has it, they began to produce it for the first time. In the Middle Ages and in the New Age, when cashmere gained exceptional popularity in Europe, even a scarf was a luxury accessible only to representatives of the highest aristocracy and royal houses.

A lot of time has passed since then, but so far there are many ambiguities regarding cashmere, and sometimes frank prejudices.

1) How, in fact, cashmere differs from ordinary wool?

Cashmere and wool are obtained from different types of animals. Wool is the hairline of lambs and is shaved off. Cashmere is the undercoat, fluff that is combed only from goats that live in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia. Their livestock in these regions is very limited, while sheep are a widespread species.

Cashmere is 8 times warmer than wool, but when breeding cashmere goats in other countries, their fluff loses its beneficial qualities. Only the harsh climate of Mongolia (in summer the temperature rises to +40, and in winter drops to -50 degrees Celsius) makes it possible for goats to form the necessary undercoat. The finest villi (up to 5 mm long, up to 14 microns thick) are very light because they are hollow inside. They create air thermal protection.

2) What are its advantages and disadvantages?

Cashmere is a very thin, light, pleasant and warm material, these are its undeniable advantages. Of note are two drawbacks: the need for special care and rather big costs.

3) Why are cashmere things so expensive?

One cashmere goat is capable of producing only 200 grams of fluff per year, so there are so few products from this material, and he is so much appreciated. On a regular sweater, you need to spend the fluff of two or three individuals. The price of cashmere, like gold, depends on its weight. In addition, the collection of fluff is done only by hand: the tradition of combing, sorting and spinning raw materials is rooted in antiquity.

4) Why does one cashmere sweater is worth 80-100$ , and the other (as, for example, Mammyhug) – 200-300$ ? Is there really only a difference in the brand?

The price of cashmere products depends not only on the brand but also on quality and even weight. To create threads that use mass-market brands in their work, lower-quality fluff is used: their fibers are shorter and thicker. In addition, synthetic fluff, identical in texture, can be added to the thread, which is often not even indicated in the composition. I also see that some brands often use a looser twist thread, which creates a deceptive feeling of softness: such products, however, quickly lose their shape.

5) How then can ordinary customers distinguish between high-quality cashmere and low-quality cashmere? How to understand that the manufacturer is "lying" on the tag?

Luxury brands are using carefully selected raw materials, which is called the "baby cashmere." To an inexperienced buyer by touch, it is quite difficult to distinguish quality products from low-quality ones, so I would advise choosing brands that have been tested over the years.

6) Why is conditional cashmere sweater is worth $ 200, and a cashmere sweater, which included yarns such as silk, already 300? After all, silk is cheaper than cashmere!

The idea that silk as part of a cashmere thread makes it cheaper or more expensive seems erroneous to me. A thread, which includes very expensive silk, is usually used in summer collections. This texture makes the thing finer, and therefore more difficult to manufacture. Hence the high price of products.

7) Cashmere for the summer - it's not hot?

It is believed that cashmere is not cold and not hot. Cool summer evening there is nothing better than to wrap yourself in a thin cashmere stole or throw a cardigan in cashmere with silk: in such common to see Angelina Jolie.

8) From cashmere sew anything from jumpers to coat. In your opinion, other things being equal, which product will be the most practical and durable?

High-quality cashmere products, whether sweaters or cardigans are always of excellent quality. Our customers love knitwear.

9) There is a general fear of cashmere in the world: in the minds of many, there is an opinion that this material is terribly capricious and, as a result, completely impractical. Is it so?

Every year, there are more and more cashmere connoisseurs in the world. Love this delicate material cashmere - means to learn to take care of him. Cashmere thing can actually last you years.

10) And yet, how to care for it so that the thing is really worn for years, and not until the first wash?

Cashmere products should be washed with a special shampoo. As an option - baby shampoo with rinse aid. Of course, it is better to do this manually and at a temperature of no more than 30 degrees. If the cashmere thing rolls down, it must be washed: the fluff unravels after washing and returns to its original appearance.

In no case should you dry the cashmere in limbo, because this way the product will stretch very quickly. It is better to lay the product on a flat horizontal surface and allow it to dry.

#sweater #merino wool #cashmere

1 note · View note

donewithjeon · 6 years

Text

Downfall [25]

Characters: Jungkook x Reader

Word Count: 4,094

Genre: Assassin AU

It’s disorienting, the feeling of opening your eyes only to realize that you have no idea when you even closed them, what time it is, where you are.

If you’re even actually awake.

The answers to many of those questions usually return after a few minutes or even seconds of regaining consciousness, but this time, the material isn’t so quick to find its way back to you. Instead, you’re left in a limbo of white noise and static vision, as if your existence is just a television channel that’s perpetually stuck without a connection.

Slowly but surely, your senses start receiving signals; they’re weak, but each one opens up the images in front of you and the sounds around you. Little by little, the world starts to move and shift again, and the cogs inside your mind begin to process that yes, you are alive.

And frankly, it’s a horribly unpleasant feeling.

The atmosphere you’re in seems strangely muffled, as if there’s a slight but constant ringing in your ears that is preventing you from fully focusing on the other noises. Your head feels like it’s filled with cotton, and your blurry vision is only able to discern the ambiguous shapes and colors around you. You’re surrounded by bright white, but you detect a discrepancy floating about in your periphery that appears to resemble a figure of some sort.

The more you feel yourself drift out of your unconscious state, the more you expect everything to clear up, but nothing quite does all the way. It just stays in a similar state, draped in a veil of haze.

You try your best to speak up to see if you are indeed sentient enough to, but your voice barely comes out as a scratchy whisper, almost as if the entirety of your throat is covered in dry sand. Fortunately, it’s enough to gain the attention of the person closest to you, because you see a swift, head-turning motion before the figure closes in to take a better look at you. In turn, you are able to get a better look at him.

A man is staring down at you from what you assume is your bedside, although you still can’t be too sure about either of those details with how much you are struggling to keep your eyelids from squeezing shut again.

“Can you hear me?” you recognize a male voice speak from above you, and while the sound hits your eardrums in an obstructed way that makes you want to answer no, you can still understand the question enough to reply accordingly.

“Yes,” you manage to squeeze out of your vocal cords before clearing your throat to get rid of the rusty sensation. The noises that emit from your throat are pretty ghastly, but at least you know that you’re still able to speak.

Lifting your head up to accelerate the process of gaining your senses back, you attempt to push yourself upright to get a better view of where you are. The figure beside you leans forward, and at first you think he’s trying to stop you, but instead, you feel his hands helping to prop you up into a better position. When you flit your eyes up to face the man up close, you’re met with the distinct features of Jin, your supervisor’s identity becoming more obvious by the second.

Automatically, you feel yourself start to relax, because his presence means that you are not in danger.

Taking a few seconds to then glance in front of you, you see several more figures sitting past the foot of your bed, some of them reclined against the wall or even tucked in the far corner. You can hazard a guess that these are some of your teammates, which means that you have approximately two seconds to figure out how to avoid the bombardment of coddling questions you’re dreading. You can probably go the rest of your life without hearing another “are you okay” or “how are you feeling”.

“Who are you guys?” you find yourself asking before you can think of another way to bypass the undesirable conversations. Your voice is still a bit raspy, but your words come out perfectly comprehensible enough to get your point across.

It seems as though that was the key to getting what you wanted, because none of those sympathetic questions are being directed towards you. Instead, you’re sitting there in one of the tensest silences you have ever experienced. You almost think that everyone is holding their breath with how quiet the mood of the room has become.

“Just kidding,” you are quick to follow up, feeling that you’ve tortured them enough. Besides, it’s the reveal of the joke that you are hoping will ease the mood a bit, but your moment of feigned amnesia seems to have created opposite effect.

You suddenly hear the sharp scraping of a chair against the floor before seeing someone stand up from the seat on the other side of the room. That certain someone begins storming off towards the door, and another figure jumps up from the adjacent seat to hurriedly chase after the former.

“Taehyung, wait!” you hear the latter shout, and you immediately recognize the voice to be Jimin’s. Judging by the slam of the door before the name is called out again in a subdued state, you can assume that the pair has now left the room.

“That wasn’t funny,” Jin criticizes, bringing you back to the situation you put yourself in.

“Not even a little?” you ask, although you already know the answer.

“If Namjoon were here, there would probably be a hole in the wall.”

“Fist or bullet?” you try to quip again, trying to salvage the situation.

Reaching up once more, you try to rub the exhaustion out of your eyes to the best of your ability. After a couple more blinks to clear up your vision one last time, you look up and see that the first thing you’re greeted with is a grave and serious glare from your supervisor.

“Sorry,” you promptly apologize. “I was just trying to break the ice.”

“If you keep it up, more than the ice is going to be broken.”

You nod understandingly as a sign that you’re yielding. They are all probably angry with you for the stunt you pulled, but you can live with that—it’s better off this way. The disapproving glare is something you’re used to, and you would much rather have that than the pitying stare you were dangerously close to getting. You just so desperately want to skip all of that nonsense. It’s already bad enough that everyone is witnessing you in this battered state, sitting around to take care of you like you’re some kind of wounded animal.

You never want them to see you weak.

You much prefer it if they’re not there whenever you need to recover, which is why you appreciated the solitude Namjoon gave you in Yongsan after the incident at City Hall. It took so much time and effort over the years to build up the strength and experiences to back up your competence, and it just feels like all that work is being torn down in a matter of seconds—and to think you only just woke up.

Thankfully, no one dwells on your stupid prank for much longer—there is a lot to be done and said, after all.

The first thing you’re subjected to is an examination of your current condition. As the doctor enters the room, that’s when your brother finally makes an appearance from wherever he was hiding. The moment he walks in, you notice that there are bandages wrapped around his hands; they don’t look to be orthopedic casts, but the injuries he sustained seem to be enough for the white dressings to cover most of his fingers, starting from the tips before continuing up into his jacket sleeve.

Your second thought that speedily replaces your observation is that you’re afraid he’ll start his lecturing right away, but he merely spares you a glance when he first enters. He seems to have a different objective as he beckons to Jin, mentioning some sort of meeting he has been called to. Your supervisor then leaves you to deal with your own devices as he heads out the door, but Namjoon and the rest of your teammates who are left don’t appear to have any intention of following him out.

No matter the fact that you gave up your privacy within the team years ago, it still makes you a bit warier for Namjoon, Yoongi, and Hoseok to be right there as the doctor relays somewhat personal information to you.

Apparently, you were out cold for the entirety of the night and early morning. The place you are currently staying in is the medical ward of the Yeongdeungpo division’s office, as you guys are utilizing this location for the reason of proximity. It’s pretty unbelievable and a little humiliating how fast you’re making your rounds through the organization’s locations these past few weeks.

After the general briefing of where you are and how you got here, you brace yourself for any lasting damage that may have occurred, but the doctor doesn’t tell you anything that you don’t already know. You have yourself a case of minor hearing loss due to the large blast damaging to your eardrums, but thankfully, it doesn’t seem to be long-term. It looks like throwing yourself into the safety position behind your makeshift shelter actually saved you more than you were hoping it would. Any other wounds you have, regardless of size, are mostly superficial—some gashes here and a few bruises there—and are expected to heal up pretty nicely within the next few weeks with proper care.

It’s quite a bit of a miracle, to be honest.

It would also be another miracle if you actually got off the hook for what you did to receive these injuries, but unfortunately, you’re only allowed one at any given time.

“What were you thinking?” Namjoon sternly asks once the doctor has completed your examination and left the room. You knew you would get an earful if you made it out alive, and living up to your prediction, your brother starts off the scolding session strong.

The truth is, you don’t know what you were thinking.

Actually, the only thought that crossed your mind in that moment before the explosion was that you’ll take cover and that will help you make it out in one piece. Technically, you weren’t wrong, seeing how you are still alive and kicking with all your limbs intact. Now, you’re more concerned about if you’ll get through this interrogation in one piece.

“I was thinking about following orders and finishing the mission,” you answer simply, refusing to break Namjoon’s gaze no matter how deeply analyzing it is.

Of course, that wasn’t the reason for diverging from the original plan, but once you were caught, you had full intentions of carrying out the mission no matter what happened. It wasn’t that you were trying to be some kind of hero by sacrificing yourself—the recognition from that wouldn’t matter if you were dead. No, it was just pure instinct—a reactionary principle built up throughout your lifetime. You refused to have a job fail by your hands, and nothing else mattered in that instant.

“Did we succeed?” you immediately inquired, realizing that you have not yet been informed about the outcome of the explosion.

“Yes, but what you did wasn’t part of the plan.”

“Well, plans change,” you swiftly refute. “It’s better to bend than break.”

Before Namjoon can continue staring you down, his eyebrows wrinkled with what looks like a great deal of concern, the doorway to your room opens up. In walks Jimin with a similar expression etched across his face, and you notice that a particular ace assassin isn’t following in behind him as he closes the door.

“Where’s Tae?” you question, glad to have something else to change the subject to.

“He’s heading back to HQ—said he didn’t want to come back in here.”

It’s your turn to show your worry with a frown as you watch Jimin walk across the room to sit back in the original seat he was occupying. “What’s wrong with him?”

“Your little joke earlier didn’t really go well with him.”

You pause for a moment at that information. In hindsight, you probably should not have gone through with the prank, as if you even gave the idea more than a second’s worth of thought before enacting it. You should have known that it was tasteless to toy with memory, especially the loss of it, when Taehyung was involved. Even if he will never admit it, you can tell that it’s a sensitive topic that should not be messed with.

“We can resolve that later,” Namjoon interrupts, not being fooled by your distraction. “Let’s talk about your initial mistake, shall we?” he continues, no doubt referring to what got you here and making bad jokes in the first place. “How did you manage to get discovered?”

“I guess I was a bit careless,” you promptly speak, but your brother does not look the least bit convinced by the perfunctory answer.

“There must have been more to it,” he presses on, but you only frown and shake your head.

“It’s not that complicated—I wasn’t quick enough, so I got caught.”

Without even truly realizing it, you’re not just lying in front of your team, but you’re lying to them. To be fair, what you said isn’t necessarily a whole lie—you definitely weren’t quick enough which then ultimately led to being discovered. While it wasn’t your intention to withhold the truth from them, your responses just came out impulsively. You’re not sure what the main reason for doing so is. Maybe it’s to save your own skin from reprehension for straying from your original assignment. Maybe it’s to save everyone time by moving past what could very much turn out to be nothing.

Maybe it’s something deeper.

Whatever it is, it just feels right to keep your findings to yourself, especially now that all the evidence of it has been successfully destroyed. Without anything to back up what you have the desire to say about your time snooping around in the building, you have a very high chance of causing more harm to yourself than good by bringing it to light. Until the gut feeling you had since the briefing of the mission dissipates, it is concluded that this will be your plan of action.

Although, you highly doubt it will go away on its own.

“Is this one of your jokes again?” Yoongi pesters from his spot, earning a confused look from Namjoon who was not present to witness your wonderfully effective icebreaker.

While your brother has taken to standing next to your bed during this questioning, Jimin and Yoongi are sitting two seats from each other across the room near the back wall. Hoseok, on the other hand, is sitting in the far corner on his own, appearing as if someone put him in a time-out. The atmosphere is still markedly stifling, but you decide against another one of your exceptional mood-lifters.

“No, I swear! I mean, I did just get blown up. Give me a break here.”

“Maybe you need another blow to the head to set things right,” Yoongi retorts in a manner that is very much his own.

As if Hoseok didn’t look crestfallen already, his head lowers further as he stares at the floor sullenly. Jimin just seems to be lost in his own thoughts, staring distantly at the foot of the bed with an expression you don’t quite recognize. Meanwhile, Namjoon gives Yoongi such a hostile look that you’ve rarely seen him display, it makes you feel even more uneasy. The sniper’s words linger in the air to muddle the mood even more, and no one is attempting to alleviate the discomfort.

Is this how the others felt when you made your joke?

“Whoa, guys. Why so serious?” You break the silence, throwing out the question to anyone who has the inclination to answer. There are a few more seconds of soundlessness while you examine the different scowls on all their faces before someone takes you up on that offer.

“You almost died.”

It’s Jimin who speaks up, although not as assertively as you would have thought. His voice is soft and downtrodden with exhaustion, but you don’t blame him—it’s been a long night. Hell, it’s been a long month.

“So? We almost die all the time. It comes with the job description.”

“You don’t understand,” he interjects, staying uncharacteristically calm. “We thought you were a goner. It was a miracle that Namjoon found you in the rubble, but you were pinned under it pretty bad.”

At that revelation, you can’t help but glance down again at Namjoon’s hands, and with the sight of them hidden behind the layers of bandages, you feel an unspeakable amount of guilt, something you were doing well to evade. You understand the situation more now and why the boys are all packed inside this small, stuffy room. You guess it’s not every day that one of you guys gets caught in the middle of an explosion, but the odds are certainly less that you’re living to tell the tale—or hide the tale, in your case.

“But I’m still alive,” you state with clarity. “The mission was successful and we all made it out. You’re all acting like I’m dead.”

No one has anything else to add, but it’s reasonable—they’re worn out. You were lucky enough to be unconscious throughout the whole debacle, but as for the rest of your team, they had to deal with the full reality of the mess you created.

Before you can allow yourself to feel worse about the situation, there is a knock at the door. The entryway swings open shortly after as Jin makes a reappearance to walk into the room.

“Sorry to break up the party, but I need to speak with her alone.”

“Fine by me,” Yoongi replies with not a moment to spare. He gets up from his seat rather sluggishly, making sure to stretch out his back a bit before heading out the door.

“Try to get some rest—all of you.”

With your supervisor’s words of security, the rest of the boys file out of the room one by one. Namjoon is the last to walk out, but before he does, you see Jin place his hand on the former’s shoulder as he passes by. It seems to be a pat of assurance rather than to signify a job well done, and you swear they exchange a knowing look before your brother leaves, closing the door on his way out.

With no one else left but you and him, Jin pulls up a chair from across the room and places it beside your bed, facing your direction. He settles into the seat to get comfortable, but judging by the way he doesn’t quite let himself lean into the backrest, you can tell that this isn’t going to be a casual chat.

“I’m going to cut right to the chase,” he suddenly says, leaving you no time to wonder what this private discussion will be about. “I need you to walk me through what happened in that building.”

Just as you expected. You didn’t doubt that this would be what he wanted to talk about, but much like with Namjoon, your supervisor will just have to be disappointed by your lackluster answers.

“The first thing I did was plant the explosives, just like I was supposed to.”

“And you managed to do that unseen?”

“Yes,” you reply. Jin gives you a head tilt of approval to continue with your account. “Then, I tried to secure an escape route, but I was discovered before I could find one.”

Jin nods faintly throughout your explanation, carrying a thoughtful expression as if mulling over your reply. “So, you were detected by an enemy, and that’s when you called for the detonation?”

You nod back at him as verification.

“But that wasn’t your initial contact with the enemy.”

The moment you realize that what Jin said isn’t a question like the ones posed prior but a firm, almost accusing statement, your blood runs cold.

“What do you mean?”

There’s a slight pause that feels infinitely longer than it should as you’re left looking into Jin’s unblinking and watchful stare.

“It was brought to my attention that some of the bodies that were found in that room had pretty impressive wounds—namely, from a sharp blade.”

For the first time ever, you feel displeased that the cleanup crew did their job a little too well. You’re surprised that there’s even any evidence left over for them to retrieve and study; you were hoping that all of it would have been splattered on the walls, if there were even walls left.

“They were the first ones to find me,” you clarify without a hitch. “I tried to kill them before they could alert the others, but I think you know how that turned out.”

Your mind is shuffling through all the possible follow-up inquiries that Jin may have and trying to come up with all the necessary answers to back up your claim. You fully anticipate him to push the subject more, but after a few more seconds of silent staring, he leans back into his seat, seemingly convinced—at least, he’s doing well to act like he is.

“There were a few discussions today regarding our current state of affairs, and after some consideration, it’s been decided that you will be taken out of the field for a while.”

Now you have a good idea of where Jin went during your physical checkup, and you don’t doubt that Namjoon was missing from the room for the same or similar reason. Your eyebrows crease as you try to decipher the vague ending to the mandate.

“How long is a while?”

“Until they deem that you’re ready to go back.”

They. You’re sure that he means the higher-ups, although you’re not sure how far up the rankings this issue was taken. Somehow, Jin’s elucidation doesn’t make you feel any less apprehensive about your status. You’re certain that this doesn’t have to do with your physical condition; even when injuries do occur on the job, hiatuses are usually decided within the team.

“But, I’m completely fine. The doctor said—”

“I know.” He cuts you off, his face not giving away any sign of changing his mind; it’s not exactly something he has the power to change, anyway.

“Then what’s the problem?” you ask with some extra force. You’re not a big fan of beating around the bush, but thankfully, you can always count on Jin to be candid with you—at least, to whatever extend he can allow himself to.

“You need to stay put for the time being,” he explains, managing to give you both what you want to hear and what you don’t. “You should already be aware that the organization doesn’t take lightly to deviating from orders.” You grimace at the admonishing nature of his speech, but you can’t say that he isn’t right. “Just know that we had to pull a lot of strings for you.”

You were correct in thinking that Jin wasn’t actually convinced by your account of the mission. If you had done your job the way you were supposed to, there was no way it would have gone this awry. There’s no point in making an argument, because you’ve already lost this round. Especially considering the last detail that your supervisor mentioned, he isn’t the one you should be filing your complaints to.

This is the best he can do.

“Alright,” you comply, if not just for the sake of Jin’s stress level. You know that you’re guilty of spiking it way too high every so often. “I’ll wait.”

Good thing you’re an expert at the waiting game.

So much of your personal growth and advancement was due to waiting, or more so what you did while you waited. If they aren’t going to give you any new missions, you’ll just have to go and complete your own. Respectively, this is the best you can do, and you know exactly where to start.

From the beginning.

#back at it again #downfall #bts scenarios #jungkook scenarios #jungkook x reader #jungkook #bts #bts scenario #jungkook scenario #bts fanfiction #bts fanfic

73 notes · View notes

natpeabct · 5 years

Text

i’m not creative

How ineffective “creative” pedagogy can lead to self doubt

My first Creative Technologies (CT) experience occurred before I even enrolled. I had a lot hinged on this course. My options were to drop everything and move up from Dunedin, or to continue rolling pizza dough full time. However, my arms were getting tired.

Open day seemed necessary. I had to be certain moving to Auckland would be worth it, and CT was not a traditional course. Trying to explain it to family and friends only made me realise how little I understood. The vague CT presentation didn’t silence my screaming doubts and burning questions, instead left me feeling inadequate and anxious. My confidence sunk even further when a list of CT traits was displayed. Contrastingly, my parents felt reassured as they believed that I fitted this archetype. Given the nature of CT, it makes sense that the presentation was ambiguous. To be otherwise would contradict the essence of creativity and CT. My feelings after the presentation were perpetuated by the single insistent thought of “I’m not creative”.

New Zealand filmmaker and artist Taika Waititi defines creativity as “having fun, looking at life through the lens of a child” (Ted X Talks, 2010). Prior to CT I felt as though creativity was binary, you either had it or not. When I thought of creative people, I thought of my free spirited, accomplished artistic friends. I had constructed a stereotype that creative people looked a certain way and produced unique creations, ignoring that creativity is a way of thinking without restriction, and child-like curious exploration. So why was it I felt this way? What influences have made me feel uncreative?

Personally, I believe it was a traditional education system that didn’t foster curiosity and student directed self-discovery. Harris (2016) affirms that learning and teaching practices are responsible for fuelling creativity and the networks that support it (as cited in De Bruin & Harris, 2017). My primary school experience consisted mainly of a transmissional approach to teaching which I found disengaging. For example, we were still being read to in Year 5, while we were capable of exploring our own interests and literary worlds. This is particularly dangerous considering the important formative stages of Year 5. Disinterest for reading may arise if the chosen text doesn’t resonate with them and agency over their reading is not fostered. How can primary school facilitate creativity while still adhering to National Standards? I believe that all primary teachers should encourage curiosity by treating every question, suggestion, answer and comment as valuable. When posed with outlandish questions, “I’m not sure, good thinking” should be replaced with “I’m not sure, let's find out”. Students feel valued when the teacher is humble and willing to learn alongside them, while autocracy is detrimental to a child's creativity (Lin, 2011).

The church was another major authoritative influence in my childhood. An unattributed proverb states, “the fish will be the last to discover water”, meaning when constantly immersed in something, they will know no difference. Church, for me, was a place full of doubt. Ultimate biblical statements were indoctrinated through light-hearted innocent media such as the animated talking Tomato called Bob. The lack of research suggests that we ignore the danger in teaching such existential topics to children in such a mollified way. However, Ennew (2006) says “spiritual-abuse” can subtly occur when adults “devalue children’s appreciation of awe, wonder, and imagination; making faith strictly cerebral” (as cited in Segura-April, 2016). This reflects my feelings as a child at church. There was little room to be curious as the sacred Bible had all the definite answers. How and when certain topics are introduced need to be examined, to avoid raising generations of doubtful children. I believe that when dealing with significant topics such as creation, afterlife and punishment of sins, children should be intellectually capable of having critical discussion. Adults must be willing to converse with curious doubtful children, and share the historical context that the Bible was written in and the inherent “Mystery of Faith”. Being definitive about such topics leads to indoctrination, which consequently extinguishes creativity.

As I developed a more critical mindset, school and church became less daunting. I met certain teachers who had the humility to foster my curiosity - most notably an old, strict chemistry teacher from New York. This teacher, as old-school and blunt as he was, would answer every question with equal attention. On the occasions where the answers were uncertain or non-existent, he would make the effort to research and learn about the topic alongside students. Not only did this facilitate students curiosity, but it also humanised the teacher. He effectively enabled his students and allowed us to learn from each other, authority was exercised in a manner of mutual respect, and humility. This was effective teaching because my teacher sort wisdom from his students and was aware of his own uncertainties. Students are enabled in classroom environments where questions are encouraged, they will have freedom to explore and deepening their understanding of the curriculum. However, it is important for teachers not to view thoughtful questions, challenging or clarifications personally (Waks, 2018). If we continue to measure the performance of schools and teachers on pass rates, then teachers will solely focus on the curriculum. This creates a culture where all learning must be “by the book”. A teacher saying “don’t worry, it’s not in the exam” exemplifies the pressures put on teachers by senior management to produce strong pass rates. High school teaches us so much about so little; only the teachers and students who see through the artificial curriculum will learn anything. High school and primary school are regulated by NCEA and National Standards respectively, which incentivises teachers to only teach what is required, leading to avoidance of divergent topics and treating areas of interest as nonsense. This diminishes creativity in both teachers and students.

CT is an industry focused environment where diversity is celebrated through different disciplines, thinking and people. I felt petrified at open day because of how foreign CT was. It is a student-directed, passionate and democratic pedagogy I had encountered only few times throughout my education. The freedom of CT became apparent at the presentation. It both excited and scared me. My preconceived idea of University consisted of lecture halls, academic journals and competitiveness, however CT is an open studio, conversation and collaboration. Learning in a studio compared to a lecture hall is evident of the pedagogy present. Shulman (2005) compares the different “nurseries” of learning. He states that we can learn about professions through studying their places of training and development. Notably, a lecture theatre has a lecturer behind a desk at the front, while a studio has groups of students working around tables with an instructor circulating among them. They are representative of autocratic and democratic atmospheres. Both have a figurehead but one talks while the other talks then observes/listens. Through a democratic approach to teaching CT, in a studio format with a focus on experimentation and collaboration, learning is organic. We are given the freedom to discover with and from each other, as teachers and students. The culture of CT supports students through teachers who recognise the fluidity of creativity. Students are encouraged to be resourceful, adaptable and diverse in thinking and skills. After two months in CT, I feel comfortable with the freedom and learning processes. Making frequent mistakes is seen as a valuable lesson rather than failure, this spurs me on to try and try again, a valuable and natural way to learn.

Open day was a glimpse into a teaching method that confused me. I was challenged on how I perceived university and creativity. The subsequent feeling of inadequacy was built on outdated pedagogy which didn’t allow for collaborative exchanges or self-discovery. Famous creatives are often viewed as outcasts and rebels, perhaps because societal pressures and education systems are too rigid and funnel people towards certain outcomes rather than supporting their own curiosity and interests. Several contributing factors are responsible for this channeling - the stereotype of creativity only being practiced in fine artists, indoctrinating establishments such as the Church and the inflexible education system which limits our educators. “I’m not creative” is a self-fulfilling-prophecy (von Oech, 1973). As the poster in my father’s classroom room states, “if you think you can, or you think you can’t, you are right”.

References:

De Bruin, L., & Harris, A. M. (2017). Developing Creative Ecologies in Schools: Assessing creativity in schools. Australian Art Education, 38(2), 244–260. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aft&AN=128027487&site=eds-live

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87. doi:10.1080/0305569032000159750

Lin, Y. (2011). Fostering Creativity through Education—A Conceptual Framework of Creative Pedagogy. Creative Education, 2(3), 151. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.23021

Segura-April, D. (2016). Appropriate Child Participation and the Risks of Spiritual Abuse. Transformation, 33(3), 171. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=115728074&site=eds-live

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Ted X Talks. (2010, November 04). The Art of Creativity | Taika Waititi | TEDx Doha [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/pL71KhNmnls

Von Oech, R. (1973). A Whack On the Side of the Head: How You Can Be More Creative. California, USA: Creative Think.

Waks, L. J. (2018). Humility in Teaching. Educ Theory, 68(4/5), 427-442. doi: 10.1111/edth.12327

#ctec502

1 note · View note

garywonghc · 6 years

Photo

Why Can’t “I” Be Happy?

by Venerable Matthieu Ricard

An American friend of mine, a successful photography editor, once told me about a conversation she’d had with a group of friends after they’d finished their final college exams and were wondering what to do with their lives. When she’d said, “I want to be happy,” there was an embarrassed silence, and then one of her friends had asked: “How could someone as smart as you want nothing more than to be happy?” My friend answered: “I didn’t say how I want to be happy. There are so many ways to find happiness: start a family, have kids, build a career, seek adventure, help others, find inner peace. Whatever I end up doing, I want my life to be a truly happy one.”

The word happiness, writes Henri Bergson, “is commonly used to designate something intricate and ambiguous, one of those ideas which humanity has intentionally left vague, so that each individual might interpret it in his own way.” From a practical point of view, leaving the definition of happiness vague wouldn’t matter if we were talking about some inconsequential feeling. But the truth is altogether different, since we’re actually talking about a way of being that defines the quality of every moment of our lives. So what exactly is happiness?

Sociologists define happiness as “the degree to which a person evaluates the overall quality of his present life-as-a-whole positively. In other words, how much the person likes the life he or she leads.” This definition, however, does not distinguish between profound satisfaction and the mere appreciation of the outer conditions of our lives. For some, happiness is just “a momentary, fleeting impression, whose intensity and duration vary according to the availability of the resources that make it possible.” Such happiness must by nature be elusive and dependent on circumstances that are quite often beyond our control. For the philosopher Robert Misrahi, on the other hand, happiness is “the radiation of joy over one’s entire existence or over the most vibrant part of one’s active past, one’s actual present, and one’s conceivable future.” Maybe it is a more enduring condition. According to André Comte-Sponville, “By ‘happiness’ we mean any span of time in which joy would seem immediately possible.”

Is happiness a skill that, once acquired, endures through the ups and downs of life? There are a thousand ways of thinking about happiness, and countless philosophers have offered their own. For Saint Augustine, happiness is “a rejoicing in the truth.” For Immanuel Kant, happiness must be rational and devoid of any personal taint, while for Marx it is about growth through work. “What constitutes happiness is a matter of dispute,” Aristotle wrote, “and the popular account of it is not the same as that given by the philosophers.”

Has the word happiness itself been so overused that people have given up on it, turned off by the illusions and platitudes it evokes? For some people, talking about the search for happiness seems almost in bad taste. Protected by their armour of intellectual complacency, they sneer at it as they would at a sentimental novel.

How did such a devaluation come about? Is it a reflection of the artificial happiness offered by the media? Is it a result of the failed efforts we use to find genuine happiness? Are we supposed to come to terms with unhappiness rather than make a genuine and intelligent attempt to untangle happiness from suffering?

What about the simple happiness we get from a child’s smile or a nice cup of tea after a walk in the woods? As rich and comforting as such genuine glimpses of happiness might be, they are too circumstantial to shed light on our lives as a whole. Happiness can’t be limited to a few pleasant sensations, to some intense pleasure, to an eruption of joy or a fleeting sense of serenity, to a cheery day or a magic moment that sneaks up on us in the labyrinth of our existence. Such diverse facets are not enough in themselves to build an accurate image of the profound and lasting fulfilment that characterises true happiness.

By happiness I mean here a deep sense of flourishing that arises from an exceptionally healthy mind. This is not a mere pleasurable feeling, a fleeting emotion, or a mood, but an optimal state of being. Happiness is also a way of interpreting the world, since while it may be difficult to change the world, it is always possible to change the way we look at it.

Changing the way we see the world does not imply naive optimism or some artificial euphoria designed to counterbalance adversity. So long as we are slaves to the dissatisfaction and frustration that arise from the confusion that rules our minds, it will be just as futile to tell ourselves “I’m happy! I’m happy!” over and over again as it would be to repaint a wall in ruins. The search for happiness is not about looking at life through rose-coloured glasses or blinding oneself to the pain and imperfections of the world. Nor is happiness a state of exultation to be perpetuated at all costs; it is the purging of mental toxins, such as hatred and obsession, that literally poison the mind. It is also about learning how to put things in perspective and reduce the gap between appearances and reality. To that end we must acquire a better knowledge of how the mind works and a more accurate insight into the nature of things, for in its deepest sense, suffering is intimately linked to a misapprehension of the nature of reality.

REALITY AND INSIGHT

What do we mean by reality? In Buddhism the word connotes the true nature of things, unmodified by the mental constructs we superimpose upon them. Such concepts open up a gap between our perception and reality, and create a never-ending conflict with the world. “We read the world wrong and say that it deceives us,” wrote Rabindranath Tagore. We take for permanent that which is ephemeral and for happiness that which is but a source of suffering: the desire for wealth, for power, for fame, and for nagging pleasures.

By knowledge we mean not the mastery of masses of information and learning but an understanding of the true nature of things. Out of habit, we perceive the exterior world as a series of distinct, autonomous entities to which we attribute characteristics that we believe belong inherently to them. Our day-to-day experience tells us that things are “good” or “bad.” The “I” that perceives them seems to us to be equally concrete and real. This error, which Buddhism calls ignorance, gives rise to powerful reflexes of attachment and aversion that generally lead to suffering. As Etty Hillesum says so tersely: “That great obstacle is always the representation and never the reality.” The world of ignorance and suffering — called samsara in Sanskrit — is not a fundamental condition of existence but a mental universe based on our mistaken conception of reality.

The world of appearances is created by the coming together of an infinite number of ever-changing causes and conditions. Like a rainbow that forms when the sun shines across a curtain of rain and then vanishes when any factor contributing to its formation disappears, phenomena exist in an essentially interdependent mode and have no autonomous and enduring existence. Everything is relation; nothing exists in and of itself, immune to the forces of cause and effect. Once this essential concept is understood and internalised, the erroneous perception of the world gives way to a correct understanding of the nature of things and beings: this is insight. Insight is not a mere philosophical construct; it emerges from a basic approach that allows us gradually to shed our mental blindness and the disturbing emotions it produces and hence the principal causes of our suffering.

Every being has the potential for perfection, just as every sesame seed is permeated with oil. Ignorance, in this context, means being unaware of that potential, like the beggar who is unaware of the treasure buried beneath his shack. Actualising our true nature, coming into possession of that hidden wealth, allows us to live a life full of meaning. It is the surest way to find serenity and let genuine altruism flourish.

There exists a way of being that underlies and suffuses all emotional states, that embraces all the joys and sorrows that come to us. A happiness so deep that, as Georges Bernanos wrote, “Nothing can change it, like the vast reserve of calm water beneath a storm.” The Sanskrit word for this state of being is sukha.

Sukha is the state of lasting well-being that manifests itself when we have freed ourselves of mental blindness and afflictive emotions. It is also the wisdom that allows us to see the world as it is, without veils or distortions. It is, finally, the joy of moving toward inner freedom and the loving-kindness that radiates toward others.

First we conceive the “I” and grasp onto it. Then we conceive the “mine” and cling to the material world. Like water trapped on a waterwheel, we spin in circles, powerless. I praise the compassion that embraces all beings.

— Chandrakirti

Mental confusion is a veil that prevents us from seeing reality clearly and clouds our understanding of the true nature of things. Practically speaking, it is also the inability to identify the behaviour that would allow us to find happiness and avoid suffering. When we look outward, we solidify the world by projecting onto it attributes that are in no way inherent to it. Looking inward, we freeze the flow of consciousness when we conceive of an “I” enthroned between a past that no longer exists and a future that does not yet exist. We take it for granted that we see things as they are and rarely question that opinion. We spontaneously assign intrinsic qualities to things and people, thinking “this is beautiful, that is ugly,” without realising that our mind superimposes these attributes upon what we perceive. We divide the entire world between “desirable” and “undesirable,” we ascribe permanence to ephemera and see independent entities in what is actually a network of ceaselessly changing relations. We tend to isolate particular aspects of events, situations, and people, and to focus entirely upon these particularities. This is how we end up labelling others as “enemies,” “good,” “evil,” etc., and clinging strongly to those attributions. However, if we consider reality carefully, its complexity becomes obvious.

If one thing were truly beautiful and pleasant, if those qualities genuinely belonged to it, we could consider it desirable at all times and in all places. But is anything on earth universally and unanimously recognised as beautiful? As the canonical Buddhist verse has it: “For the lover, a beautiful woman is an object of desire; for the hermit, a distraction; for the wolf, a good meal.” Likewise, if an object were inherently repulsive, everyone would have good reason to avoid it. But it changes everything to recognise that we are merely attributing these qualities to things and people. There is no intrinsic quality in a beautiful object that makes it beneficial to the mind, and nothing in an ugly object to harm it.

In the same way, a person whom we consider today to be an enemy is most certainly somebody else’s object of affection, and we may one day forge bonds of friendship with that selfsame enemy. We react as if characteristics were inseparable from the object we assign them to. Thus we distance ourselves from reality and are dragged into the machinery of attraction and repulsion that is kept relentlessly in motion by our mental projections. Our concepts freeze things into artificial entities and we lose our inner freedom, just as water loses its fluidity when it turns to ice.

THE CRYSTALLISATION OF THE EGO

Among the many aspects of our confusion, the most radically disruptive is the insistence on the concept of a personal identity: the ego. Buddhism distinguishes between an innate, instinctive “I” — when we think, for instance, “I’m awake” or “I’m cold” — and a conceptual “self” shaped by the force of habit. We attribute various qualities to it and posit it as the core of our being, autonomous and enduring.

At every moment between birth and death, the body undergoes ceaseless transformations and the mind becomes the theatre of countless emotional and conceptual experiences. And yet we obstinately assign qualities of permanence, uniqueness, and autonomy to the self. Furthermore, as we begin to feel that this self is highly vulnerable and must be protected and satisfied, aversion and attraction soon come into play — aversion for anything that threatens the self, attraction to all that pleases it, comforts it, boosts its confidence, or puts it at ease. These two basic feelings, attraction and repulsion, are the fonts of a whole sea of conflicting emotions.

The ego, writes Buddhist philosopher Han de Wit, “is also an affective reaction to our field of experience, a mental withdrawal based on fear.” Out of fear of the world and of others, out of dread of suffering, out of anxiety about living and dying, we imagine that by hiding inside a bubble — the ego — we will be protected. We create the illusion of being separate from the world, hoping thereby to avert suffering. In fact, what happens is just the opposite, since ego-grasping and self-importance are the best magnets to attract suffering.

Genuine fearlessness arises with the confidence that we will be able to gather the inner resources necessary to deal with any situation that comes our way. This is altogether different from withdrawing into self-absorption, a fearful reaction that perpetuates deep feelings of insecurity.

Each of us is indeed a unique person, and it is fine to recognise and appreciate who we are. But in reinforcing the separate identity of the self, we fall out of sync with reality. The truth is, we are fundamentally interdependent with other people and our environment. Our experience is simply the content of the mental flow, the continuum of consciousness, and there is no justification for seeing the self as an entirely distinct entity within that flow. Imagine a spreading wave that affects its environment and is affected by it but is not the medium of transmission for any particular entity. We are so accustomed to affixing the “I” label to that mental flow, however, that we come to identify with it and to fear its disappearance. There follows a powerful attachment to the self and thus to the notion of “mine” — my body, my name, my mind, my possessions, my friends, and so on — which leads either to the desire to possess or to the feeling of repulsion for the “other.” This is how the concepts of the self and of the other crystallise in our minds. The erroneous sense of duality becomes inevitable, forming the basis of all mental affliction, be it alienating desire, hatred, jealousy, pride, or selfishness. From that point on, we see the world through the distorting mirror of our illusions. We find ourselves in disharmony with the true nature of things, which inevitably leads to frustration and suffering.

We can see this crystallisation of “I” and “mine” in many situations of daily life. You are napping peacefully in a boat in the middle of a lake. Another craft bumps into yours and wakes you with a start. Thinking that a clumsy or prankish boater has crashed into you, you leap up furious, ready to curse him out, only to find that the boat in question is empty. You laugh at your own mistake and return peaceably to your nap. The only difference between the two reactions is that in the first case, you’d thought yourself the target of someone’s malice, while in the second you realised that your “I” was not a target.

Here is another example to illustrate our attachment to the idea of “mine.” You are looking at a beautiful porcelain vase in a shop window when a clumsy salesman knocks it over. “What a shame! Such a lovely vase!” you sigh, and continue calmly on your way. On the other hand, if you had just bought that vase and had placed it proudly on the mantle, only to see it fall and smash to smithereens, you would cry out in horror, “My vase is broken!” and be deeply affected by the accident. The sole difference is the label “my” that you had stuck to the vase.

This erroneous sense of a real and independent self is of course based on egocentricity, which persuades us that our own fate is of greater value than that of others. If your boss scolds a colleague you hate, berates another you have no feelings about, or reprimands you bitterly, you will feel pleased or delighted in the first case, indifferent in the second, and deeply hurt in the third. But in reality, what could possibly make the well-being of any one of these three people more valuable than that of the others? The egocentricity that places the self at the centre of the world has an entirely relative point of view. Our mistake is in fixing our own point of view and hoping, or worse yet, insisting, that “our” world prevail over that of others.

THE DECEPTIVE EGO

In our day-to-day lives, we experience the self through its vulnerability. A simple smile gives it instant pleasure and a scowl achieves the contrary. The self is always “there,” ready to be wounded or gratified. Rather than seeing it as multiple and elusive, we make it a unitary, central, and permanent bastion. But let’s consider what it is we suppose contributes to our identity. Our body? An assemblage of bones and flesh. Our consciousness? A continuous stream of instants. Our history? The memory of what is no more. Our name? We attach all sorts of concepts to it — our heritage, our reputation, and our social status — but ultimately it’s nothing more than a grouping of letters. When we see the word JOHN, our spirits leap, we think, “That’s me!” But we only need to separate the letters, J-O-H-N, to lose all interest. The idea of “our” name is just a mental fabrication.

It is the deep sense of self lying at the heart of our being that we have to examine honestly. When we explore the body, the speech, and the mind, we come to see that this self is nothing but a word, a label, a convention, a designation. The problem is, this label thinks it’s the real deal. To unmask the ego’s deception, we have to pursue our inquiry to the very end. When you suspect the presence of a thief in your house, you have to inspect every room, every corner, every potential hiding place, just to make sure there’s really no one there. Only then can you rest easy. We need introspective investigation to find out what’s hiding behind the illusion of the self that we think defines our being.

Rigorous analysis leads us to conclude that the self does not reside in any part of the body, nor is it some diffuse entity permeating the entire body. We willingly believe that the self is associated with consciousness, but consciousness too is an elusive current: in terms of living experience, the past moment of consciousness is dead (only its impact remains), the future is not yet, and the present doesn’t last. How could a distinct self exist, suspended like a flower in the sky, between something that no longer exists and something that does not yet exist? It cannot be detected in either the body or the mind; it is neither a distinct entity in a combination of the two, nor one outside of them. No serious analysis or direct introspective experience can lead to a strong conviction that we possess a self. Someone may believe himself to be tall, young, and intelligent, but neither height nor youth nor intelligence is the self. Buddhism therefore concludes that the self is just a name we give to a continuum, just as we name a river the Ganges or the Mississippi. Such a continuum certainly exists, but only as a convention based upon the interdependence of the consciousness, the body, and the environment. It is entirely without autonomous existence.

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE SELF

To get a better handle on this, let’s resume our analysis in greater detail. The concept of personal identity has three aspects: the “I,” the “person,” and the “self.” These three aspects are not fundamentally different from one another, but reflect the different ways we cling to our perception of personal identity.

The “I” lives in the present; it is the “I” that thinks “I’m hungry” or “I exist.” It is the locus of consciousness, thoughts, judgement, and will. It is the experience of our current state.

As the neuro psychiatrist David Galin clearly summarises, the notion of the “person” is broader. It is a dynamic continuum extending through time and incorporating various aspects of our corporeal, mental, and social existence. Its boundaries are more fluid. The person can refer to the body (“personal fitness”), intimate thoughts (“a very personal feeling”), character (“a nice person”), social relations (“separating one’s personal from one’s professional life”), or the human being in general (“respect for one’s person”). Its continuity through time allows us to link the representations of ourselves from the past to projections into the future. It denotes how each of us differs from others and reflects our unique qualities. The notion of the person is valid and healthy so long as we consider it simply as connoting the overall relationship between the consciousness, the body, and the environment. It becomes inappropriate and unhealthy when we consider it to be an autonomous entity.

As to the “self,” we’ve already seen how it is believed to be the very core of our being. We imagine it as an invisible and permanent thing that characterises us from birth to death. The self is not merely the sum of “my” limbs, “my” organs, “my” skin, “my” name, “my” consciousness, but their exclusive owner. We speak of “my arm” and not of an “elongated extension of my self.” If our arm is cut off, the self has simply lost an arm but remains intact. A person without limbs feels his physical integrity to be diminished, but clearly believes he has preserved his self. If the body is cut into cross sections, at what point does the self begin to vanish? We perceive a self so long as we retain the power of thought. This leads us to Descartes’ celebrated phrase underlying the entire Western concept of the self: “I think, therefore I am.” But the fact of thought proves absolutely nothing about the existence of the self, because the “I” is nothing more than the current contents of our mental flow, which changes from moment to moment. It is not enough for something to be perceived or conceived of for that thing to exist. We clearly see a mirage or an illusion, neither of which has any reality.

The idea that the self might be nothing but a concept runs counter to the intuition of most Western thinkers. Descartes, again, is categorical on the subject. “When I consider my mind — that is, myself, given that I am merely a thing that thinks — I can identify no distinct parts to it, but conceive of myself as a single and complete thing.” The neurologist Charles Scott Sherrington adds: “The self is a unity.… It regards itself as one, others treat it as one. It is addressed as one, by a name to which it answers.” Indisputably, we instinctively see the self as unitary, but as soon as we try to pin it down, we have a hard time coming to grips with it.

THE FRAGILE FACES OF IDENTITY

The notion of the “person” includes the image we keep of ourselves. The idea of our identity, our status in life, is deeply rooted in our mind and continuously influences our relations with others. The least word that threatens our image of ourselves is unbearable, although we have no trouble with the same qualifier applied to someone else in different circumstances. If you shout insults or flattery at a cliff and the words are echoed back to you, you remain unaffected. But if someone else shouts the very same insults at you, you feel deeply upset. If we have a strong image of ourselves, we will constantly be trying to assure ourselves that it is recognised and accepted. Nothing is more painful than to see it opened up to doubt.

But what is this identity worth? The word personality comes from the Latin persona, for an actor’s mask — the mask through which (per) the actor’s voice resounds (sonat). While the actor is aware of wearing a mask, we often forget to distinguish between the role we play in society and an honest appreciation of our state of being.

We are generally afraid to tackle the world without reference points and are seized with vertigo whenever masks and epithets come down. If I am no longer a musician, a writer, sophisticated, handsome, or strong, what am I? And yet flouting all labels is the best guarantee of freedom and the most flexible, lighthearted, and joyful way of moving through the world. Refusing to be deceived by the ego in no way prevents us from nurturing a firm resolve to achieve the goals we’ve set for ourselves and at every instant to relish the richness of our relations with the world and with others. The effect, in fact, is quite the contrary.

THROUGH THE INVISIBLE WALL

How can I expect this understanding of the illusory nature of the ego to change my relationships with my family and the world around me? Wouldn’t such a U-turn be unsettling? Experience shows that it will do you nothing but good. Indeed when the ego is predominant, the mind is like a bird constantly slamming into a glass wall — belief in the ego — that shrinks our world and encloses it within narrow confines. Perplexed and stunned by the wall, the mind cannot pass through it. But the wall is invisible because it does not really exist. It is an invention of the mind. Nevertheless, it functions as a wall by partitioning our inner world and damming the flow of our selflessness and joie de vivre. Our attachment to the ego is fundamentally linked to the suffering we feel and the suffering we inflict on others. Renouncing our fixation on our own intimate image and stripping the ego of all its importance is tantamount to winning incredible inner freedom. It allows us to approach every person and every situation with natural ease, benevolence, fortitude, and serenity. With no expectation of gain and no fear of loss, we are free to give and to receive. We no longer have the need to think, speak, or act in an affected and selfish way.

In clinging to the cramped universe of the ego, we have a tendency to be concerned exclusively with ourselves. The least setback upsets and discourages us. We are obsessed with our success, our failure, our hopes, and our anxieties, and thereby give happiness every opportunity to elude us. The narrow world of the self is like a glass of water into which a handful of salt is thrown — the water becomes undrinkable. If, on the other hand, we breach the barriers of the self and the mind becomes a vast lake, that same handful of salt will have no effect on its taste.

When the self ceases to be the most important thing in the world, we find it easier to focus our concern on others. The sight of their suffering bolsters our courage and resolve to work on their behalf, instead of crippling us with our own emotional distress.

If the ego were really our deepest essence, it would be easy to understand our apprehension about dropping it. But if it is merely an illusion, ridding ourselves of it is not ripping the heart out of our being, but simply opening our eyes.

So it’s worthwhile to devote a few moments of our life to letting the mind rest in inner calm and to understanding, through analysis and direct experience, the place of the ego in our lives. So long as the sense of the ego’s importance has control over our being, we will never know lasting peace.

19 notes · View notes

joeahj · 5 years

Text

socialising

human beings are not only passive perceivers in the context of social interactions but also active creators of shared emotional experiences...they need to be aware of their own presence and whether the simulated vicarious emotions is in the presence or absence of an emotional state in the social target in response to another person's condition...The perceiver's construal of a social target's condition as the representation of an internal, “psychologically real” state might thus provide an unnecessarily narrow scope to examining vicarious emotions...vicarious emotions can be considered as the result of ongoing simulation processes that, depending on the social context as well as personal or task induced motivations are flexibly tuned to match another's internal psychological state...emotion of the observer must be congruent with the emotion of the observed. teacher that makes students feel valued and supported (increasing students' interest in classroom activities) displays the following characteristics: they model a caring attitude toward their work; they have individual expectations based on individual differences; they have democratic interactions with the students; and they are nurturing. Additionally, these teachers show concern for the student beyond the classroom walls, such as approaching students to inquire about their life when they notice something abnormal in the student’s behavior...students are more inclined to persevere academically and socially because they do not view the challenges from a negative perspective (from the teacher) ...(people) regarded their own choices as less predictable...described their co-workers' lives as more determined (having fewer future possibilities) than their own lives...Studies indicate that peoples' belief in free will is inconsistent. Reliable inter-individual differences in appreciation is dependent on personal experience...Personal need for structure is needed for art appreciation...Artworks embody a right balance of the expected and the surprising. It also helps to clarify discussions on the relative importance of familiarity and novelty in art appreciation where it is often concluded that: “It is not extreme novelty but ‘optimal’ innovation—novelty that allows for the recoverability of the familiar—that is most pleasurable”... Pelowski and Akiba (2011) similarly highlight disruptions and breaches as vehicles for the kinds of self-transformation described in accounts of rich aesthetic experiences. When artworks forcefully challenge the conceptual classifications and personal self-understandings of the viewer, they can lead him or her to question, change, or expand these, with possible existential ramifications. This is a precarious balance to strike because the viewer might prematurely break off perception. Overcoming initial negative experiences requires courage and inventiveness to modify the existing (self-)schema (Vygotsky 1971; Pelowski and Akiba 2011) but is constitutive for the full aesthetic experience. It is encouraging to see that, starting from different inspiration, namely the full, rich aesthetic experience and several social-psychological findings, the authors arrive at an understanding of the aesthetic experience that is consistent with ours. While their view explores the existential and meta-cognitive implications of the conflicts present in art, ours starts from a substantiated theory of visual perception, in a rather “bottom-up” way...random intermittent rewards (there is a pattern but it is disrupted) or non-reward (during initial extinction trials: there was a clear pattern, but now it is interrupted) provoke most vigorous responding. In those cases motivation is highest...Neurally, unexpected rewards, compared with expected rewards, are associated with increased dopamine peaks...They reported that the positive affective quality of taste can be boosted by increasing the amount of effort required to obtain it... pleasure (hedonic value) is increased by effort... almost winning is shown to induce heightened reward expectancies in rats, mediated by dopamine and analogous to the near-miss effect in addiction (Winstanley et al 2011). It seems that part of the reward lies in the anticipation instead of the consumption (Lauwereyns 2010), with a little unpredictability adding to the reward. One must note that this is in agreement with the idea that biological organisms are characterized by striving: It would have made little sense for evolution to reward static states of stimulation. Prediction errors introduce uncertainty that will stimulate further processing (mental effort), the outcome of which is also uncertain, thus unexpected when successful. Phenomenally, this kind of perceptual problem solving is not only rewarding but also gives the viewer a sense of mastery (Leder et al 2004)... monkeys have a preference for cues that indicate that advance information on the presence or absence of a forthcoming reward will be available over cues that signal such information will not be available, even if their choice has no influence whatsoever on the actual appearance of the reward. Moreover, the monkeys more consistently chose this advance information over the no information cue than they choose a more probable reward over a less probable reward (Niv and Chan 2011). In other words, information or reduction of uncertainty is rewarding as such, consistent with our account. In fact, when Bromberg-Martin and Hikosaka (2011) examined the neural underpinnings of the value of information, they concluded that it is encoded by the same habenula and dopaminergic neurons that also encode primary rewards. To be clear, these dopamine and habenula neurons are known to signal a change in reward contingencies (reward prediction errors), and this is also what they found with regard to information: these neurons do not encode the value of predicted information per se but only the changes in predicted information (Niv and Chan 2011). The signals related to information change were simply added up to signals related to reward changes, indicating that the value of reward and that of information use a interchangeable neural currency (Niv and Chan 2011)... Cues that signify a reduction of uncertainty also seem to have greater value for humans... The authors conclude that predictability promotes preference (Ogawa and Watanabe 2011). In the context of an effortful search task, with a large degree of uncertainty on the position of the target, predictable configurations will become associated with a higher value than configurations that do not reduce uncertainty. To sum up, dealing with unpredictability requires effort from the viewer. But when successful, it leads to positive appreciation. The idea that the viewer's personal efforts and “accomplishments” matter in art appreciation is also recognized by Mamassian (2008, p 2152): “not all ambiguities in paintings are re-solved, and artists probably strive to leave the right amount of ambiguities to let the observer contribute to his experience in a personal way.” However, only by using minimal prediction errors painters can ensure that viewers will obtain their reward(s) and not give up prematurely. Final gratification may be further postponed as long as the artist has hidden in the painting enough “micro-rewards” the viewer can discover along the way...tensions are inherent in any percept, as with our concept of prediction (error), even acknowledging the active role of the observer and his past experience in (automatically) generating these tensions. Analogously to our view, Arnheim contends that psychological, like physical, systems “exhibit a very general tendency to change in the direction of the lowest attainable tension level” (Arnheim 1974, p 14)...Predictability implies more efficient, higher level representations, freeing up expensive processing resources...a change towards a more efficient state of the dynamic perceptual networks given the current constraints of stimulation, tantamount to a decrease in prediction error (surprise), is pleasurable...Because of the prediction errors, we feel impelled to question our perception and to linger on its contents. These visual or cognitive challenges urge us to, implicitly or explicitly, go through multiple cycles, exploring different predictions and the corresponding errors (Leder et al 2004). They grant access to different layers of meaning, which we so much like to discover. They create the multi-interpretability and ambiguity that has been invoked by others to explain our enjoyment of art (Biederman and Vessel 2006; Mamassian 2008; Zeki 2004; van Leeuwen 2007)...Discrepancies are attention grabbing and stimulate further processing, but only when strong predictions are first built up (clear organization)...strong expectations have to be present before such an experience can ensue. In a completely unfamiliar situation no strong predictions are formed, so no violations will be encountered. Incongruency or expectancy violation will result in negatively valenced arousal aimed at reducing the inconsistency if at all possible, as in our account. Some authors have even reported that this arousal can lead to an affirmation of any other meaning framework to which one is committed...In further studies the authors find that this effect is limited to individuals with a high personal need for structure, and diminished when the abstract artworks were given meaning (eg, by giving a title). This research goes to show that next to stable traits of the viewer and stable characteristics of the piece of art, aesthetic appreciation can also be influenced by the context-dependent cognitive and emotional mindset the viewer is in...maintaining (or returning to) predictability is about survival and maintaining the body through homeostasis (Cerra and Bingham 1998; Van de Cruys and Wagemans in press; Friston 2010a). Predictive coding is about reinstating predictability and therefore about affirming one's own existence. So within a predictive coding framework, we do not need to assign a special status to the existential threat of mortality...unpredictability and its resolution are important in other human activities...in humor we build up expectations and create discrepancies...this complicated exploratory (itinerant) behavior does not violate the general tenet of minimization of surprise, provided that the agent “revisits a small set of states, called a global random attractor that are compatible with survival” (Friston 2010a, p 2)...Predicting is the default mode of the brain, encompassing perceptual and semantic levels. joy-sharing as well as with praisee’s activities interest process praise (improving trait malleability + challenge positivity) recognition & encouragement fo discouragement + self-doubt Learning the “cultural code” by reading up on the culture and observing it in action is the very first step toward developing cultural fluency. build cultural capital that you can maneuver in any foreign setting. mentor who appreciates your position + new culture expectations can help craft a new style that fits where you are and that feels authentic to you. navigate difficult conversations Trying to combat the tendency to shoot the messenger is worthwhile.

#life perspectives

0 notes

aharboredcollectionofthoughts · 8 years

Quote

One of my good friends, in a very deep conversation the other day, explained to me that true artists must suffer. I hadn’t really considered it before; she was absolutely correct in every way. Some people, and not to say not everyone possesses the ability, because all humans do… we’re born into the world with the same experience, presumably, as every other human, right? With that in mind, consider life experience as a concept. Each person’s perception of the world is drastically different. My personal perception of the college campus I walk on every single day is relative to each and every one of my experiences. By this I mean every single hardship and conflict I have faced, I do still think about, whether I wish to denounce this or not. Humans tend to essentially equate to a sum of their personal experiences. I look at trees as a beautiful work of art simply because my life experiences, real experiences with other humans, have led me to the idea that there is static beauty in trees, specifically coniferous trees. There isn’t really a quantifiable or explainable reason as to why I like conifers in particular, they just scream aesthetic beauty to me, and have since before I can remember. Static beauty is just something that, as a human, I have always appreciated. With the concept of humans being a total sum of each and every one of the experiences they have in fact experienced before, consider that just because one’s personal perception of an event is positive, another person’s perception of that same event could be negative. Association is the reason for this. I have come to realize a lot of my pure hatred for conflict, yelling in particular, stems from watching a disastrous and extremely unhealthy relationship occur before my eyes, my entire life. It is not because of this that I tend to form extremely meaningful and strong bonds with the people that come into my life, rather, it is because I understand that there is no fulfillment in meaningless relationships. Every single person I have met, throughout my entire life, has touched me in some way. I mean this, and if any of those people ever come across and read this, they should know without a doubt in their mind, whether it’s been weeks, months, or years since we last spoke, that their existence is part of the reason I think the way I do, and have such appreciation for not only human life, but the concept of life in accordance with time and existence as a principle concept. I have my theories about what happens after death, which are also the sum of not only my experiences, but the sum of every religion I’ve learned about, every scientific fact I’ve come across, and the people I’ve met and have been touched by throughout my whole life. With this all in mind still, consider that there are certain events or even certain people that will touch one’s mind in such a way, sometimes even unknown to this specific person, that will prompt an absolute epiphany or masterpiece. For me this notion can be simply attributed to the fact that I used to write a plethora of things in middle school, but because of a specific person I met, and was seemingly very touched by at the time, stopped writing as often. That was a large chunk of my life as an existing human up until this point, as I thought this was my first love. I learned, through another specific person, that the person that hindered my abilities rather than enhancing them to an unexplainable level, was not the person I first fell in love with. My poetry works, though seemingly ambiguous, are centered around very real people, and a very real person I should say, and real events that make up the sum that is my experience as an existing human being. I am not denouncing what I had with what I thought was my first love. What I am attempting to explain to the reader is the difference between love and infatuation, as people often like to call the topic of conversation. My works, centered around this person that randomly was placed in my life… reflect not only the sum of my experiences, but what I feel and perceive this person to be as an individual human being. Because this person has never hindered my ability in anything, rather enhanced it in every way, I say that it is love, and not infatuation. The first sentence of this speaks of a good friend. She is an amazing person, I just have to say. And if she does in fact read this, she’ll know. She won’t doubt it’s about the specific conversation we had just days before. I go back to what she said to me not only to prove a point, but to attempt to explain my works, without stating anything specific. The person that I have become not only engrossed in, but inspired by, is one that is not a constant in my life. I say this because it seems, and is somewhat fact, that everything is against us working as two coexisting human beings that want to be with each other indefinitely. In the coming year, he must leave, and I knew that from the very beginning, yet I allowed it to happen. I did it for a reason. Then, it was because I felt that I not only just needed to experience this human being in my life, but that I really fucking wanted to. Because I allowed myself to have the experience, and I’m still in the middle of the experience as I set on my bed and type this on this Saturday early afternoon, I have blossomed.

@aharboredcollectionofthoughts

#spilled thoughts #spilled ink

7 notes · View notes

andersonguy-blog1 · 8 years

Text

Empowerment

A new year, a new me is an exemplary lack-lustrous goal, a goal with little-life in it because it’s aim is to continue to use the outer to complete the inner and in this particular case the outer is in the form of ‘time’. 'A new me’ is a big statement it’s nearly always inflated and elaborate, it doesn’t just hint at small improvements it implies a complete new person and life. The reason I say inflated is because in this context it involves becoming 'bigger and better’ not being humble, gentle, grateful, open, kind. The phrase at the start of this paragraph becomes even more clearly distorted when the idea of becoming 'a person of success with a successful life’ is going to be due to an ambiguous and unrelated cause - a change of date in the calendar. '2017 is going to be the year I make it’ is overlooking the simple truth that one has already made it. One is a perception that one has not yet found life and needs too and the other is knowing they are life itself.

Goals become empowered with divine inspiration when they serve universal intent. Essentially anything that helps us appreciate the fullness of life in the moment is the higher intelligence at work and anything that can help keep us in the dream state of separateness goes against it. Music that connects, ice cream that tastes soooo good, businesses that unexpectedly give back or surprise, inspirational stories, David Attenboroughs commentary and the production of planet earth and so on are things that humanity offer to enhance the moment of the now. Nature, the solar system, beautiful scenery, beautiful animals and the space that allows everything to exist are the greatest enhancements to the now though and they are created by the same intelligence that created us. We are one and whole with the source of all life, we are intrinsically connected to a higher intelligence greater than ourselves and we are here to serve it. We can’t serve it without serving each other so a goal that includes and not excludes, that serves 'we’ and not 'me’, that inspires others and a goal that resonates with the 'higher energy frequency that created all that is’ are the only goals that are free from polarity (turning off and on) because they both fulfil and create simultaneously. The most important aspect of a universally aligned goal is to honour every moment in time of creation/improvement/innovation. It’s important to know what direction your going in but it doesn’t need to be compulsively revisited in the mind, when every step of the way is appreciated and honoured then the goal is continually fulfilling in itself. When the now is priority and past/future are rarely visited then life is a celebration, the concept of failing is no more and instead joy and enthusiasm become the predominant states of being independent of results or anything else external. One simply enjoys every moment of creation not the thought of the fruits of it so a goal is just a lovely addition to continuing to revel in life’s 'now’, it doesn’t make life we are life but it can add to it beautifully.

The three best things I learnt in 2016 was what true love is, how destructive preaching can be and how to cease judging myself and others. I don’t mean all these things are permanent, they can all come and go still but I often taste 'the nectar’ their virtuosity provide. The best thing I have learnt is that I am not 'me’ I am 'we’ and I see the angel in everyone when I see my own. For some good time now I have spoken nothing but sweetness of others and when I do see the 'faults’ operating in them I nearly always speak of them peacefully, this has been perhaps the greatest achievement in my life. It’s a conscious choice that liberates because it goes against the conformity grain of social acceptability, I no longer follow so many thoughts that many others follow. It’s insane that true love isn’t usually socially acceptable, an example could be sitting next to a homeless person and spending time with him or her, maybe even eating dinner with them, something I’d love to do actually. (I wrote about it a few weeks ago and I am still yet to give gifts to the homeless because I reconsidered my idea about giving them books, I don’t think this is loving now, anyway il talk about this in a separate post). But yea many people won’t exactly embrace an act of kindness such as this, 'it’s too much’, and they will be uncomfortable with the idea, some may even think what the hell are you doing haha. Following one another or rather people acting like sheep is only people wanting to be around others who think and subsequently act the same as they do. There is comfort to be found in finding people who think-alike because loneliness is lifted 'oh, I’m not as separate as I thought’ - until another debilitating thought comes up. Destructive thoughts are allowed to roam free because so many are possessed by their mind, they value it higher than their inner beauty because they don’t yet know how it feels. Once they experience it though they won’t want anything else, nothing will or will want to be valued higher. Destructive thoughts create destructive effects and in the physical realm the effects can’t alleviate until the cause is resolved. Rather than being possessed by mind one can be possessed by God (or possessed by love if you don’t connect with the word God). I spend more of my life free of being comforted by thoughts and burdened by them too, and the best thing about it is it’s a gift available to anyone. The overcoming the preaching bit has taken the most time to see-through. The definition of preaching is 'to publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief) or to sincerely advocate (a belief or course of action).’ So the definition of preaching is rather beautiful and peaceful but the word has got a heavy connotation to it. That’s because most preaching isn’t so accepting, it could otherwise be known as forceful-preaching and I used to do it much more often, i bought up spirituality and the idea of it to my friends and family in conversation without them showing interest. If you have found yourself preaching and you find it hard to stop it’s certainly something you will do less of the more you become aware of the mechanism behind it. And the driving force is usually 'look what I know that you don’t yet, look how great I am’. Because I haven’t had a big ego for sometime now I have never lived so gracefully, because it operates in me less I don’t feel so much pain. I do still feel pain but it becomes more obvious how diminished it is when things happen that would usually really pain me don’t anymore. So instead when I feel any thing unsettling I go straight to the 'problem’ in me not the problem I perceive caused it outside of me, which never really does it’s always me causing my own suffering. We all create our own pain and the more we believe someone or something else did or does the more intense we feel it and the longer its vibrational frequency operates. Whenever I may meet someone my upmost priority is to be free of suggesting she finds her radiant inner beauty in any situation by trying to tell her how too. Instead I want to watch what’s not beautiful in her like I do in me, i want to let it all go. I want to always be playful and light with her which may seem impossible but it’s kind of fun to do the impossible as Walt Disney said or at least aim for it. Although I may know that she has not yet seen how powerful she is it takes great power to let her be as she is anyway, the more she is celebrated for who she is in the moment no matter how hateful or judgemental she may be being the more love flows through the cracks. Suggesting that there is euphoria to be experienced is lovely but not so lovely when you suggest how - which can only be by facing ones own negativity/problems/inner devil otherwise known as ego. The ego is on high alert to anything that may reduce and bring about its end so the 'thought’ of its destruction will make it stronger. This is why true love cannot be bestowed on another, it’s a delicate process becoming aware that one has an entity in them that is self destructive. And it’s even more delicate to realise the entity is so prominent it’s pretending to be who one thinks they already are nearly all the time. 'You have an entity in you that is inhabiting your life greatly and also your not conscious of it either, you don’t even know you think it’s you’ are words if uttered to another become just as insane as the ego itself. Expressed in this way makes the insanity more obvious, maybe it will help you too if you have ever found yourself trying to change another because you are absolute certain it’s for 'their own benefit’, maybe reading what I wrote is as clear to you too just how insane it can be (and negative) to say such elaborate words to try and help someone realise their own love, beauty, life essence. No matter how good and noble it may feel to want to try and help save someone it is incomparable to loving them just as they are. The secret to experiencing euphoria is to see the ego in them just like you do in you but let it happen, let it continue to operate in them and love them. Your love is likely to hurt him or her when they can’t yet reciprocate your trueness by them feeling bad/guilty but their opposition to true love is their ego and we are powerless to stopping this for them. But we can be exceptional by accepting them in their entirety and when we can’t we can see what in us in not accepting, not what they need to do differently.

2 notes · View notes

cactusnotes · 5 years

Text

Max Stirner

Inspired by Hegel, Stirner lived a quiet life in multiple, low-paid jobs, but with a series of books that would form his legacy. One was ‘The Ego and his Own’, which did not gain any significance in his life, but this changed after his death.

The melodramatic and brilliant writing influenced Nietzsche, Marx, and the growing anarchist movement. He came up with the theory of Stirnerian egoism, which is indeed quite different to the general ideas around egoism and self-interest.

Stirner accepted psychological egoism to an extent, in that self-interest played a part in ethical decisions, however, he also asserted that this cannot be actively done unless one knows what the ‘self’ is, for otherwise it cannot be identified as self interest due to ambiguity. Looking at the word 'self-interest’ one could deduct that it is meant to be actively sought, and benefits us.

So, someone who does something, feeling like they are a ‘slave’ to whatever causes that--whether it is instinct or the like--which is not the self itself. Thus, actions done due to the sense of having no other option is not true self interest. As such Indeed, language and rationality are both human inventions, yet have circled round to haunt their maker--humanity--so we lose the original sense of these creations.

EINZIGE - EGO

He also believed that we are not truly free: religious and philosophical systems of moral behaviour control our moral choices. These are the things, as previously mentioned, things we are ‘slaves’ to. These are the ‘essences’ or the ‘ghosts’ in our decisions.

Actual egoism is realising personhood outside of religious and philosophical systems, to find out what our ‘ownness’ is, and gain mastery over this part of us. The true self must be free from external ideologies and internal senses and instincts, to end up with a truly ‘unique’ self.

“Totally different from this free thinking is own thinking, my thinking, a thinking which does not guide me, but is guided, continued, or broken off, by me at my pleasure.”

Stirner thinks we should acknowledge this enslavement, about how the idea controls us, and is it so deeply integrated in to us, as shown by our fears in nakedness, naturalness, and believe ourselves to be evil (from a Christian perspective clearly).

However, though these control our actions, we cannot believe them to be moral, or moral actions. That comes from pursuing ourselves, finding what our ego and selves actually desires, wills and sees as right. Institutions and moral codes from external sources cannot be right within themselves.

“There is no sinner and no sinful egoism!”

These ideologies cannot be right in themselves as they cannot lead to self development and moral improvement: they simply became rules with no freedom for thoughts on what is actually moral. Normative ethical frameworks enslave the self and ego.

Philosophers are not excluded from this, though they are often regarded as free-thinking, as they say they reject God, yet seem to accept the laws his influence has left in the world, such as rejection of incest and adultery, which indicates they still follow the moral framework of the religion: it is integrated in to us.

“I decide whether it is the right thing in me; there is no right outside of this.”

Stirner illustrates his point with the analogy of giving money to the homeless. Psychological egoism would suggest this is entirely for self-interest, and while Stirner accepts this is a part, he also states that we have a duty to do so which we follow, which is not, in itself, self-interest.

This proves we are not free: we are troubled by guilt, consciences. However, there is reason why these can be seen as wrong--there are charities whose entire purpose is to help the homeless, thus we need not give to the poor. This shows that psychological egoism is not correct, as we are bound, enslaved by rules like helping those in need unless it is literally impossible to do so. The end action, giving money to the homeless, is reluctant.

Our idea of good and bad are thus defined by institutions, rather than ourselves and a desire for bettering oneself by actually analysing what our self needs, and surely analysing and doing what the self needs would be the only way of improving the self!

Stirner is not amoral (rejection of morality as a whole) though rejects values and fixed moral laws. Morality is to suggest truth in obligations to behave in certain ways: to believe that the self benefits from one of the institutional laws or obligations. Thus morality can be compatible with true egoism. It is not values though, Stirner’s morality, is more based on the non-rejection of moral claims. Stirner therefore doesn't think one should seek total rejection of our enslavement, but we should seek our true self and live by that, while still enslaved: do both, perhaps.

“Do not seek for freedom...seek for yourself...just recognise what you really are, and let go of your hypocritical endeavours, your foolish mania to be something else than you are.”

EIGENHEIT - OWNNESS

There are differences between the perceived self and ownness: the idea of mastering oneself. Anyone who thinks they are free must check: they are free from all obligations to any conscious or subconscious ideal or ideology, religious or philosophical.

One can only be their own when they are the master of themselves, rather than any external existences, from God to man, Church to law. This way, you can pursue, selfishly, anything that is of use to you. Do as you will and please.

“He is an unfree man in the garment of freedom.”

Freedom. What is good and bad does not matter. As the owner of oneself, one is slave to no obligations. Therefore, as the master of oneself, you can do what you want. This would be to fulfil oneself, to do otherwise is still subject to moral laws. To be one's own person is true freedom. To note, ownness is not an idea, as morality and freedom are, it is a descriptor. A person either has ownness over themselves or doesn't. To have ownness then leads to ideas like freedom.

“Away, then, with every concern that is not altogether my concern! You think at least the ‘good cause’ must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my own concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.”

EINZIG - UNIQUENESS

To be unique is to possess the freedom from all impositions to pure individuality. To be aware of your ownness, and your will is different to applying. Applying and appreciating ownness is to become unique. One who is unique is the true self, or the true egoist. To be individual from all the conceptual theories is to be unique, separate, untied. You are the only one who owns themselves: you are unique.

“Egoism does not think of sacrificing anything...it simply decides, what I want I must have.”

However, if everyone was unique, it does not oblige everyone being equal. Equality is another ideology that enslaves us. When one is unique, they are the only one. They are not an ego among other egos, the world is simply one's own ego. Everything therefore, about that world is unique, untouchable by external factors.

An egoist must see themselves as unique, therefore meaning they cannot be equated to anyone: total differences cannot be compared, such as when multiple factors are changed, one cannot conclude a result, same here. One who is totally unique cannot be equated with anything or anyone--they are incomparable.

Sensual appetites are also to be rejected by the self, or else the self has an obligation. Individuals need to form emotional detachments towards their own appetites and ideas, so greed for materialistic gain is also an obligation, and detachment from society is also not an obligation, for else that would be a source of enslavement.

To be free to act to self interest is to act in the best way to behave for oneself, because it is what one wills free from any internal and external bindings. Uniqueness means that actions would vary between different people, serving their own nature.

APPLIED THEORIES

Our relationships and behaviour all depend upon our own unique nature. There is neither obligation to be equal, nor obligation to be cruel materially-minded. Stirner himself advocated for co-operation between egos. Ownership seemed to be against any outside agent, yet, in the need of practicality, required a special, unprincipled community only united in recognition of the uniqueness of egoists.

This union of egoists should form a society where cooperation prevailed in recognition of such a uniqueness, thus allowing a true identity could be sought and asserted. This is the weakness, in that it is obviously an obligation and ideal in itself. However, it was simply for the sake of practicality. It is a true, honest cooperation of individuals which respects the uniqueness of them all, is impermanent in all its connections, and supports all in their unique search of individual goals. No final ends.

Application of this theory leads to links of anarchy. No system should be there, for it interferes and conflicts with an individual’s uniqueness. However, one not being under any obligation whatsoever to a state does not directly clash with the existence of such a state. Individuals choose whether or not to follow laws of the state. Stirner does not see a need to actively oppose the state therefore, but still thought that the spread of egoism would lead to the natural collapse of the state anyway.

“Now am I, who am competent for much, perchance to have no advantage over the less competent? We are all in the midst of an abundance; now shall I not help myself?”

Obviously, there is the criticism of clashing interests and bigotry. He himself has asserted such, or at least has indicated intolerance. Indeed, how can one find their true self and fulfil its needs if their needs are clashing, or, through no fault of their own, they are subject to injustice, bigotry and lack of opportunities to seek their true self?

However, this concern, to Stirner, is simply due to our own selves being slaves to institutions favouring compassion. It is not actually bad for people to fail to find themselves and suffer due to it, and if it asserted otherwise by one’s true self, then that true self must seek it. If one fails, then they too are subject to such logic. If one fails to seek their true self, that is on themselves, as it is their actions. Simple as.

#Religion and Philosophy / Cactus #Ethics / Cactus #Ethical Thought / Cactus #Max Stirner

1 note · View note

secular-vernacular · 6 years

Text

Dan Ariely, Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational

ch1: relativity

Arbitrary coherence: arbitrary prices, once established in our minds, will shape present and future prices

Once participants willing to pay a certain price for something, willingness to pay for other items in the same category judged relative to the anchor. This makes them coherent

Self-herding: consistency with past decisions / behaviours

Behaviour serves a need: what do they get out of it?

New habits / behaviour easier to embed where they are already disrupted - so piggyback onto existing rather than whole new

Avoiding an anchor / setting a new one - make the experience so different it’s not tied to the last anchor

Can take an ambiguous experience and arbitrarily turn it into a positive or negative one

Question your repeated behaviours: where did they come from?

Rational economic model assumes price of product set where two forces converge: production at each price (supply) & desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand) - these results challenge those assumptions as consumers’ willingness to pay can easily be manipulated

Can also be the other way around - market prices (set by suggested retail prices by suppliers) can influence consumers’ willingness to pay

Elasticity of price: would price changes have an effect on demand if consumers weren’t anchored to the original price? Maybe not

Mutual benefit of trading rests on the assumption that all the players in the market know the value of what they have and are considering getting from trade - this may not be true if we have the wrong initial anchors

So what do we do if we can’t rely on the market forces of supply and demand to set optimal prices and can’t count on free market mechanisms to help us maximise our utility?

Zero (cost) is an emotional hot button

Issue in struggle between free and another price (for a good item)

Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is free we forget the downside - we perceive it as immeasurably more valuable due to loss aversion. No visible possibility of loss when something is free

The draw of zero cost appeals equally for goods as it does money

Example of zero cost effect (buying things you don’t need due to the appeal of ‘free’) - free shipping on orders over £X

The concept of £0 also applies to time

Want to draw a crowd? Make something free. Want to sell products? Make something free

Want people to do the right thing? Decrease the cost (make it free!)

Standard economic theory considers the absolute value and the relative value - what they get and what they give up

Tension between market norms and social norms

Social norms, reciprocity is not immediately required

Dragging circles experiment: social favour dragged the most circles, followed by highest payment, then by second highest payment

People will work more for a cause than for cash

Market norms crowd out social norms (lawyers would volunteer their time but not for $30)

Gifts keep us in social exchange and away from market norms

For market norms to emerge, it is sufficient to mention money (even when none changes hands)

Thinking about money made participants in the salary group more self reliant and less willing to ask for help - but they were also less willing to help others - more selfish and self-reliant

Once a market norm has crowded out a social norm, the social norm doesn’t really re-emerge

Treating customers socially great - encourages loyalty - but establishing it as a social relationship and then treating it as a market one (eg late fines) is even worse. I.e. you can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to be social, just stick to a simple value proposition

Social rewards strongly motivate behaviour - one of the least used in corporate life is the encouragement of social rewards and reputation

Social norms (e.g. the excitement of building something together)

Social norms - pride in profession and sense of duty

Elevate the social norm - honour it as much as we honour something else

Purpose, mission and pride rather than money, test scores, etc.

We should probably rethink school curricular and link them in more obvious ways to social goals (e.g. elimination of poverty)

Influence of arousal (e.g. teen pregnancy & HIV/AIDS)

When aroused, participants’ interest in some activities twice as high as when they weren’t. Magnitude of underprediction was huge

Jekyll & Hyde; dichotomy between repressive propriety and uncontrollable passion

Our inability to understand ourselves does not seem to improve with experience

To make informed decisions we need to somehow experience and understand the emotional state we will be in at the other side of the experience

Pre-commitment tools can help overcome procrastination

Bundling services / requirements (r.g. Series of car tests) more effective

Endowment effect: when we own something we value it more than others do

The powerful drive of anticipated regret / memory - collecting memories and experiences

Much of our life deviated to ownership - including selling our time

Poor spending decisions due to three quirks:

1) we fall in love what we own (and recount good memories of it when we try to give it up) - nature’s ability to make us instantly attached to what we have

2) focus on what we may lose rather than what we may gain.

3) we assume other people will see the transaction from the same perspective as we do

The more work you put into something the more ownership you feel for it

‘Virtual ownership’ - picturing it as yours (e.g. highest bidder in an auction)

View all transactions as though you’re a non owner

Normally, we can’t stand the idea of closing the doors on our alternatives - usually we give something up in exchange

Consequences of not deciding; lost time, opportunity, love

Effect of expectations (anchoring) - MIT (balsamic brew) disgusting to those who were told what it was

When the coffee ambience looked upscale, it tasted upscale too

When we believe beforehand something will be good, it generally will be good

Does expectation change the psychology of the experience (e.g. modify the neural activity underplaying the taste)? I.e. reshape sensory perception?

Which is more important? Knowledge before experience or an input of information after the experience has taken place?

Ventromedial prefrontal cortex associated with strong feelings

A stereotype is a way of categorising information

Asian American women experiment (169) - influence our performance in line with a stereotype

Power of priming - participants walk slower after thinking of words to do with elderly

Expectation allows us to make sense of a conversation in a noisy room

‘Blind’ condition might help - facts presented without opinion / who did it could help better recognise the truth

We are all trapped in our perspective, which blinds us to the truth - neutral third party may be helpful

The power of price: expectations change the way we perceive and appreciate experiences

Expectation can alter our subjective and objective experiences

Placebo - Latin ‘I shall please’ - used to refer to sham mourners hired to sob for deceased at funerals

Two mechanisms shape expectations; belief and conditioning (like Pavlov’s dogs)

Can implied difference in quality (e.g. by price) influence experience?

The relationship between price and placebo is particularly pronounced for people with more experience with recent pain

Consumers who stop to reflect about the relationship between price and quality are far less likely to assume that a discounted drink is less effective

Effect of discounts is largely an unconscious reaction to lower prices

Perception of value can become real value - but there is a problem here for marketers in that hyping a product beyond what can be objectively proven is problematic

In the US very few surgical procedures are tested scientifically - while it may be morally questionable to make patients test the efficacy of treatments, may be morally difficult to inflict painful treatments that aren’t proven (I.e. may not work) - wasted suffering is the cost of not doing them

The context of our character: Part I

Enron owed much of it’s success to ‘innovations in accounting’

Why are some crimes, particularly white-collar crimes, judged less severely than others, we wondered - especially since their perpetrators can inflict more financial damage between their ten o’clock late and lunch than a standard-issue burglar might in a lifetime’?

When given the opportunity, many honest people will cheat - but just by a little bit - once tempted to cheat, the participants didn’t seem to be as influenced by the risk of being caught as one might think

The success of most people almost always depends upon the favour and good opinion of their neighbours and equals; and without a tolerably regular conduct these can very seldom be obtained

Individuals are honest only to the extent that it suits them (including the desire to please others)

Honesty is considered a moral virtue in nearly every society

Freud: internalise social virtues leading to development of superego

The problem is our internal honesty monitor is active only when we contemplate big transgressions, like taking a single pen or two pens

Cost/benefit and probability of getting caught does not seem to have much influence on dishonesty

The mere contemplation of a moral benchmark reduced dishonesty

Moral reminder at the point of temptation

Once professional ethics (the social norm) have declined, getting them back won’t be easy

In China, the word of one person in one region rarely carries to another region

Lower trust decreases the willingness to take risk and no one pays in advance, no-one offers credit

Sign our names to promises that we will act with integrity

Psychological distance: why dealing with cash makes us more honest

Much of the dishonesty involves cheating one step removed from cash

When given the opportunity to cheat with non-monetary currency, cheating doubles in magnitude

The rate of ‘total cheating’ was four in 2,000 (in control condition)

Not all expenses alike in terms of people’s ability to justify them

When people give receipts to others to submit, they are another additional step removed

Corporate dishonesty (e.g. mis-leadings practices - air miles you can’t exchange)

Once cash is a step away, we will cheat by a factor bigger than we could ever imagine

Personality trait: need for uniqueness: to order what they enjoy and portray themselves in a positive light; people willing to sacrifice personal utility for reputations utility

Economic theory assumes there are no free lunches - if there were any, someone would’ve extracted the value already

Psychologically easier to sacrifice consumption in the future

In behavioural economics, a free lunch is the benefit of making better decision for yourself

Relativity is everywhere, and we view everything through its lens (e.g. someone you were friends with in Spain but would never be friends with at home). Prevents disenchantment

Pain of paying insensitive to the amount we pay (diminishing sensitivity

Gifts aren’t rational

Market norms may also erode the pride and meaning people get from their workplace

Explicitly stating the financial value of benefits can diminish enjoyment, motivation and loyalty amongst employees (e.g. X on salary, X on gym, etc.) - transactional

skinner - schedules of reinforcement - either fixed schedule (regular - e.g. one every hundred) or variable schedule (random) - the arrival of the reward is unpredictable. Variable schedule more motivating - e.g. gambling - inability to predict when reward is coming - we become so addicted to receiving the unexpected (a pellet) that we become fixated with checking

If a particular desired behaviour results in an immediate negative outcome (punishment) it will be very difficult to promote, even if the ultimate outcome is highly desirable

Look for immediate, powerful and positive reinforcements with the not-s-pleasant steps we have to take toward our long term objectives

Positivity bias - overvalue ourselves & anything to do with us

Expectation plays a huge role in how we experience things

Pope: blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed

Cheating arises from our attempts to behave honestly. Instead, the picture that emerges from our experience is that cheating arises from our attempts to balance two incompatible goals - feeling good about ourselves, and being selfish - flexible psychology allows us to play in the grey (fudge factor) - what happens when people rest with conflicting interests

If it’s clear cut, make the right decision. If there’s any ambiguity, it’s easier to rationalise bad behaviour

You can actively ask the experts you rely on for a declaration on any financial interests (e.g. XX)

Planning fallacy - underestimate how long a task will take

The moment you make a financial mistake, the chances that you’ll be hit hard by the financial industry are high

The trust game - central role of trust in human behaviour

Fehr experiment: trust and revenge - most people who had an opportunity to exact revenge did - reciprocity - experiences in the striatum (reward centre) - desire for revenge is pleasurable, or similar to pleasure. In a bizarre way, revenge can be an enforcement mechanism (you’d expect someone to come after you or you went after them - mango story)

All creatures respond negatively in situations where things don’t seem to make sense - when we don’t have an explanation for what is happening, we become prone to learned helplessness

Seligman and Maier: when you don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect you become more helpless; their perception of their ability to predict and control the shocks had a big impact on how helpless they became generally - imagine this feeling in markets - Unexplained and erratic economic behaviour destroyed faith that we understood the cause and effect in our environment

Pennebaker; even when external events make no sense, we can benefit from the process of trying to make sense of them - do this actively with news rather than passive consumption

Journalists; ‘if it bleeds, it leads’

Can connectivity decrease creativity and diversity?

Connecting many markets globally decreases diversity in financial instruments and in opinions

Pressures of conformity are such that in one large financial village is likely to lead everyone to accept the same general beliefs (model) of how the financial world works

Basic free market argument: if they can’t recruit and retain the best minds in the business, these minds will simply go elsewhere, leaving us with less qualified people in charge of the economy

Impact of bonus on performance; as long as the task involves only mechanical skill, bonus incentives -but when the task requires rudimentary cognitive skill, higher bonus led to poorer performance

Public image as a motivator

Social pressure is a two-edged sword: having to perform in front of others raises stress too, and at some point the stress overwhelms the benefits of increased motivation

Analogy: we recognise our physical limitations and use tech to overcome them - why don’t we recognise our cognitive limitations?

0 notes