Many religions, much of psychology, and a sizable chunk of the self-help literature give put great importance on achieving contentment. The eminently sensible idea is that in an uncertain world, the only sure way to be happy is to learn to accept the way things are, here and now.
An almost equally great number of thinkers, teachers, and sages have said that rather than meekly acquiescingto an unsatisfactory situation, we should make every effort to remove or overcome those obstacles which hinder us from achieving our full potential for happiness. The idea being that we should take responsibility for our own well-being, rather than being doormats to fate and to the desires of others. This, too, seems like wise advice.
Both teachings can be taken to extremes. Some advocate total detachment from the experiences and passions of life until light and dark, pain and pleasure, hunger and fullness are all one. Others urge us to pursue total self-gratification, at the expense of all those around us.
Obviously, these two principles are not necessarily contradictory. The “Serenity Prayer” famously outlines a balance between the two poles:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference
This is only one of many possible compromises. The dichotomy here is really one of internal vs. external change – do we alter our environment to suit us, or do we alter ourselves to make us amenable to the environment? If we take the latter course, our latitude is virtually limitless. With sufficient conditioning we can find contentment, even happiness, in almost any situation. But at what point do we lose that which makes us unique in order to mold ourselves to conditions? It is true, as the song says, that we can find “happiness in slavery” – but is it worth it if we compromise our very selves in order to do so? I would say not. Clearly a balance must be struck; but we must be mindful of the danger of swinging too far in the opposite direction. There is a potentially infinite number of external factors which we might find incompatible with our perfect satisfaction. Without drawing the line somewhere, we risk being perpetually bedeviled by the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”, wiling away our years bitching on LJ about every little thing which disturbs our calm.
But where to draw that line? The verse I quoted above sounds good in theory, but in practice I doubt changing everything I can just because I can would lead to bliss. What should be borne and what should be overcome? Where do we draw the line between petty complaints and legitimate causes for action – action which may lead to others being discomfited or hurt? In the grey area between the two poles, what divides a petty irritation from an obstacle to our leading a fully-realized life? What rules of thumb, if any, exist to help us make the distinction?
Any thoughts?
This post reminded me of. . . .
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
A free bird leaps on the back of the wind
and floats downstream till the current ends
and dips his wing in the orange suns rays and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage
can seldom see through his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.
The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own.
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.
Maya Angelou
——————–
As you already know, I’ve always been a fighter. The only avenue of happiness for me is to build the sort of world in which I can be happy. Sometimes I am sad at the battles I have to fight, against nasty things and things so disgustingly passive and pathetic that fighting them is like punching a tar-baby.
But mostly, I am happy with my life. I feel I live free, and always true to myself.
The problem with changing who you are to be more content with any situation is that you then have no solid reference point and must constantly ask yourself “Who am I. . .today?” While on an existential level we are all different people every moment, you know what I mean anyway. Changing yourself to suit the world means you have little control over who you are, which can lead people to feeling like their life is out of control (have you ever heard this in therapy before?). Also, taken to the extreme, if everyone did this then by what random powers would the world be run?
I never have to ask myself who I am. I’m very well grounded in who I am and that gives me a kind of security that, come hell or high water, most people just don’t have. Part of my goal in life is to teach more people how to find it.
I, of course, realize that there are things that I cannot change. I cannot change the course of a tornado, but somebody can, someday, figure out how to do that and save many lives. I think the problem with any sort of “choose your battles” philosophy is that it allows people to think things are impossible, and therefore gives them an excuse not to try. We all must choose what is most important to us and fight to make it happen. Tibet? Not important to me, therefore I don’t fight for it one way or the other. But if I chose to, I feel I could make a difference.
One of the best feelings is to know that you are constantly changing the world to make it a better place. I strive to always live my life that way. The buddhists can suck it. . .I am wholly in the world.
A question… how do you feel about those who practice action, but without any attachment to the results? Engaged buddhists seek to practice compassion on personal and societal levels for the purification of their own souls and that of all sentient beings, while having no emotional attachment to whether their efforts succeed or fail in this life. Likewise, Jesus never promised his followers that all that charity and extra-mile-walking would do any good – he just told them to do it.
Note I’m not trying to make a point about altruism here. These are still ultimately selfish acts, but they are done without concern (and hence, the possibility of dissapointment) for their tangible results. What’s your take on that?
I don’t do the things I do because I am necessarily attached to the results, I do them because it is important for me to try. If it works out, and I am sucessful, then that’s an extra bonus.
For me, it’s all about the way I LIVE. In this way I align with the buddhists. I believe in right action (see “eightfold path”). It is not important that my actions result in anything, only that they be RIGHT. Life is a matrix of decisions, and some of those decisions are right, some of them are wrong, and some of them are simply choices of direction. In the former two cases, I strive to always choose rightly, and in the latter to choose wisely. I have a kind of oracle in me that allows me to know, intuitively, if I am going astray.
As long as I stay my path and listen to that oracle, I am happy, and I have faith that even if the results are not what I have wished, somewhere along the line they are still postive, beneficial, and RIGHT. This isn’t faith in a divine power as much as it is faith in myself.
If you send positivity and strength into the world, it will eventually come back to you, even if it is not in the way you originally intended.
So I guess I’m with the buddhists on this one. Wierd, but true!
I don’t do the things I do because I am necessarily attached to the results, I do them because it is important for me to try. If it works out, and I am sucessful, then that’s an extra bonus.
For me, it’s all about the way I LIVE. In this way I align with the buddhists. I believe in right action (see “eightfold path”). It is not important that my actions result in anything, only that they be RIGHT. Life is a matrix of decisions, and some of those decisions are right, some of them are wrong, and some of them are simply choices of direction. In the former two cases, I strive to always choose rightly, and in the latter to choose wisely. I have a kind of oracle in me that allows me to know, intuitively, if I am going astray.
As long as I stay my path and listen to that oracle, I am happy, and I have faith that even if the results are not what I have wished, somewhere along the line they are still postive, beneficial, and RIGHT. This isn’t faith in a divine power as much as it is faith in myself.
If you send positivity and strength into the world, it will eventually come back to you, even if it is not in the way you originally intended.
So I guess I’m with the buddhists on this one. Wierd, but true!
A question… how do you feel about those who practice action, but without any attachment to the results? Engaged buddhists seek to practice compassion on personal and societal levels for the purification of their own souls and that of all sentient beings, while having no emotional attachment to whether their efforts succeed or fail in this life. Likewise, Jesus never promised his followers that all that charity and extra-mile-walking would do any good – he just told them to do it.
Note I’m not trying to make a point about altruism here. These are still ultimately selfish acts, but they are done without concern (and hence, the possibility of dissapointment) for their tangible results. What’s your take on that?
And yet more questions…
What about situations in your own personal life that may not have any ramifications for the larger world? To give a concrete example, how do you draw the line between things Gregg does which you decide to learn to live with and accept, and things which you ask him to change for the sake of your happiness?
Re: And yet more questions…
I have long ago learned that I cannot force other people to make good choices. I think Gregg watches too much TV, and that this makes his life somewhat empty and boring. But I don’t have any choice about that. I have, however, told him that once the baby hits 6 months old, he cannot sit with the baby and watch TV for hours on end. I will not have my children growing up believing that watching television is the most engaging thing to do with their spare time.
I can’t think of anything I’ve ever asked a significant other to change. Unlike most people I know, I am simply willing to walk away from a relationship if it turns out there is something that simply makes me unhappy. Jason had an anger problem, and I was going to walk away from it. He supposedly learned to deal with it and asked me to come back.
I haven’t asked Gregg to change anything either. I’ve asked him to treat me the way he treated me before our relationship was what it currently is. Most men have a tendency to make a relationship their top priority until it is solidified, and then it falls to somewhere into the “when it is convenient” category. That’s not acceptable to me. Gregg didn’t have any problem spending time with me after work a few days a week when we were first dating, so I don’t see why the “I need to relax after work” excuse should fly now.
That all said, we’ve been doing much better and he has been spending more time with me. We went out to see XXX last night and he went to the Reptile show with me this past weekend.
How do I draw the line? At my own happiness. Does the fact that Gregg watches TV make me unhappy? No, not really. Does the fact that he uses it as an excuse to ignore me make me unhappy? Yes. Lately, he has been watching TV AND spending time with me, and I don’t have a problem with it.
Also If there was something he did that I considered WRONG, I would leave in a heartbeat. If he was a coke dealer, a contract killer, a con man, or anything of the sort, I would be gone as soon as I found out.
The bottom line is that if any relationship doesn’t make me happy, there is no point in being in it. Everyone thinks that it is threatening to say “I am not happy with you the way that you are, so goodbye.” I think it only makes sense. One should never expect to change people.
Re: And yet more questions…
I hope you don’t my continuing this dialogue at length…
It seems to me that you find it easy to make a certain delineation where I find it very difficult. Or perhaps you don’t make the delineation at all… have you ever been in a position where you were needlessly causing yourself suffering in your reactions to others? I.e., it didn’t really matter WHO you were with, the unhappiness was really coming from within – even though it might have seemed as if they were causing you to be unhappy? Or do you consider all of your reactions to be valid and correct by default, and just try to structure your life so that negative reactions aren’t triggered?
Re: And yet more questions…
I hope you don’t my continuing this dialogue at length…
It seems to me that you find it easy to make a certain delineation where I find it very difficult. Or perhaps you don’t make the delineation at all… have you ever been in a position where you were needlessly causing yourself suffering in your reactions to others? I.e., it didn’t really matter WHO you were with, the unhappiness was really coming from within – even though it might have seemed as if they were causing you to be unhappy? Or do you consider all of your reactions to be valid and correct by default, and just try to structure your life so that negative reactions aren’t triggered?
Re: And yet more questions…
I have long ago learned that I cannot force other people to make good choices. I think Gregg watches too much TV, and that this makes his life somewhat empty and boring. But I don’t have any choice about that. I have, however, told him that once the baby hits 6 months old, he cannot sit with the baby and watch TV for hours on end. I will not have my children growing up believing that watching television is the most engaging thing to do with their spare time.
I can’t think of anything I’ve ever asked a significant other to change. Unlike most people I know, I am simply willing to walk away from a relationship if it turns out there is something that simply makes me unhappy. Jason had an anger problem, and I was going to walk away from it. He supposedly learned to deal with it and asked me to come back.
I haven’t asked Gregg to change anything either. I’ve asked him to treat me the way he treated me before our relationship was what it currently is. Most men have a tendency to make a relationship their top priority until it is solidified, and then it falls to somewhere into the “when it is convenient” category. That’s not acceptable to me. Gregg didn’t have any problem spending time with me after work a few days a week when we were first dating, so I don’t see why the “I need to relax after work” excuse should fly now.
That all said, we’ve been doing much better and he has been spending more time with me. We went out to see XXX last night and he went to the Reptile show with me this past weekend.
How do I draw the line? At my own happiness. Does the fact that Gregg watches TV make me unhappy? No, not really. Does the fact that he uses it as an excuse to ignore me make me unhappy? Yes. Lately, he has been watching TV AND spending time with me, and I don’t have a problem with it.
Also If there was something he did that I considered WRONG, I would leave in a heartbeat. If he was a coke dealer, a contract killer, a con man, or anything of the sort, I would be gone as soon as I found out.
The bottom line is that if any relationship doesn’t make me happy, there is no point in being in it. Everyone thinks that it is threatening to say “I am not happy with you the way that you are, so goodbye.” I think it only makes sense. One should never expect to change people.
And yet more questions…
What about situations in your own personal life that may not have any ramifications for the larger world? To give a concrete example, how do you draw the line between things Gregg does which you decide to learn to live with and accept, and things which you ask him to change for the sake of your happiness?
This post reminded me of. . . .
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
A free bird leaps on the back of the wind
and floats downstream till the current ends
and dips his wing in the orange suns rays and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage
can seldom see through his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.
The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own.
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill
of things unknown but longed for still
and his tune is heard on the distant hill
for the caged bird sings of freedom.
Maya Angelou
——————–
As you already know, I’ve always been a fighter. The only avenue of happiness for me is to build the sort of world in which I can be happy. Sometimes I am sad at the battles I have to fight, against nasty things and things so disgustingly passive and pathetic that fighting them is like punching a tar-baby.
But mostly, I am happy with my life. I feel I live free, and always true to myself.
The problem with changing who you are to be more content with any situation is that you then have no solid reference point and must constantly ask yourself “Who am I. . .today?” While on an existential level we are all different people every moment, you know what I mean anyway. Changing yourself to suit the world means you have little control over who you are, which can lead people to feeling like their life is out of control (have you ever heard this in therapy before?). Also, taken to the extreme, if everyone did this then by what random powers would the world be run?
I never have to ask myself who I am. I’m very well grounded in who I am and that gives me a kind of security that, come hell or high water, most people just don’t have. Part of my goal in life is to teach more people how to find it.
I, of course, realize that there are things that I cannot change. I cannot change the course of a tornado, but somebody can, someday, figure out how to do that and save many lives. I think the problem with any sort of “choose your battles” philosophy is that it allows people to think things are impossible, and therefore gives them an excuse not to try. We all must choose what is most important to us and fight to make it happen. Tibet? Not important to me, therefore I don’t fight for it one way or the other. But if I chose to, I feel I could make a difference.
One of the best feelings is to know that you are constantly changing the world to make it a better place. I strive to always live my life that way. The buddhists can suck it. . .I am wholly in the world.
There’s a relevant saying I’ve always liked that runs like this:
Reasonable people adapt themselves to their environment.
Unreasonable people insist on adapting their environment to themselves.
Therefore, all worldly progress depends on unreasonable people.
Learning to accept the world as it is leaves your fellow humans the need to ‘learn’ the same thing, whereas fixing the source of the pain heals everyone, and lets them spend their effort on other things.
This assumes that the things which make life unpleasant for one person also make life unpleasant for others, but I am fairly certain that this is a good enough approximation for our purposes.
That’s George Bernard Shaw, if you were interested. It’s one of my favorite quotes 🙂
That’s George Bernard Shaw, if you were interested. It’s one of my favorite quotes 🙂
There’s a relevant saying I’ve always liked that runs like this:
Reasonable people adapt themselves to their environment.
Unreasonable people insist on adapting their environment to themselves.
Therefore, all worldly progress depends on unreasonable people.
Learning to accept the world as it is leaves your fellow humans the need to ‘learn’ the same thing, whereas fixing the source of the pain heals everyone, and lets them spend their effort on other things.
This assumes that the things which make life unpleasant for one person also make life unpleasant for others, but I am fairly certain that this is a good enough approximation for our purposes.
a few things…
1. I’ve been reading a bunch of Jung lately–specifically on the whole psychological typing–and it has been quite interesting… Jung’s ideas on extraverted and introverted types might give you a bit more perspective here… (not that it will solve your dilemna.. but more on that later..) He posits extraverted types as being object-oriented… i.e. their main focus is on objective and external data… This, of course, makes them very good at looking at the world–and interacting with it… and often in changing it…
On the other side—introverted types are more concerned with the subject.. and with subjective perceptions of stuff.. this makes them good at knowing themselves…
The reverse of each side is also discussed–such as the fact that extraverted types often lose themselves in trying to deal with the world (a businessman who has no other life than making his business successful) whereas introverted types become overly ego-centric and misperceive the world by trying to make it fit their own personal/subjective ideas about the world–rather than grasping the object as it really is…
Of course, I’m doing massive damage to much of what Jung is saying… and he goes into far more depth here–going into how this relates to thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting, etc… But if you haven’t already, you might want to take a gander at this particular Jung.. the title of the book I’m reading is called “Psychological Types” and the section is at the end.. Chapter X–General Description of types… (if you find the Collected Works of Jung–it’s Volume 6.)
2. To approach your question… I will ask you a question..
Why do you make decisions? Is it because they are forced upon you by the external world? Is it because you like to feel that you are controlling the destiny of your life? Is it, most likely, something in between?
I ask this.. because of something you said in a previous post–about lacking drive and ambition… this fact gained my attention because drive and ambition are something that I have in spades…. and…. (this is going to be a bit convoluted.. please bear with me..) because of this drive.. it has always been relatively easy to come to grips with questions about the “criteria for judgement,” which is what you seem to be getting at here…
Let me elaborate.. if you have serious amounts of drive–then you (or at least I!) cannot deliberate terribly long about judgement criteria.. because you know you have to make decisions and you want to make them.. then you will generally figure out your criteria rather quickly–mainly because if you don’t, then you cannot do anything and that is way more frustrating than picking the wrong criteria…
Of course–if you are at all reflective–then you tend to pay attention to how your decisions turn out–and you can attempt to adjust your criteria for judgement..
Thus to answer your question.. the answer comes about in an iterative process–you just pick a point between the poles you describe and go with that.. and you pay attention, and then adjust/tweak the point as life goes on..
it’s a process.. and there are no good “rules of thumb” other than to try to constantly improve/adjust your decisions as life goes on.. (of course, there are always the basic rules of “don’t believe you are god etc etc”.. but you already know all these..)
A further thought… Often in life, I’m come across people who delve into this problem of “but how should I decide?” and something that my experiences have, after reflection, seemed to tell me is that very often these same people like to think about this problem.. to dwell in it… because it affords them a way to refrain from making decisions at all…
i.e… if you cannot agree on a set of criteria for judgement.. than judgement cannot progress… and decision making is all about making a judgement one way or the other…
Now.. I am not saying that all reflection on criteria is like this… and I’m not saying that this instance necessarily fits into this designation.. but it is situation that I’ve seen before… and something that you might think about for at least a second (before saying to yourself.. “Oh, that, what a kook!” ;)))) )
okay.. must workout!
Re: a few things…
But I AM god 😛
Re: a few things…
But I AM god 😛
Re: a few things…
I can understand how having a lot of ambition would make these decisions easier. If you have a definite direction, it would be easy to weight various options against it to see which would impede and which would advance your progression towards the goal. It’s harder for someone who’s more interested in existing in the here-and-now than in future achievement.
question..
If you are only interested in living in the “here-and-now”… and it is about the experience of life.. then why would you care at all about any kind of judgement criteria… i.e. aren’t good and bad experiences all just “experiences” to exist in?
if this is not the case–i.e. you want more good than bad experiences… then you should be able to–with a little work–define what means good to you and what means bad… and then use that… and at the very least, you can reflect upon past experience without needing that to point you in any necessary future direction…
basically.. I don’t think anyone can give you an ‘answer’ to this question.. or rules of thumb that will actually apply to you any better than you can yourself… Yes.. this is a very subjective stance to take.. but I basically think it true.. (unless you feel happier in submission to other people’s ideas of happiness and goodness.. something that I pretty much abhor…)
Re: question..
This comes pretty close to being circular… “it’s good if it’s good and it’s bad if it’s bad”. But regardless, that doesn’t address my question. Boiled down, it’s this:
Given a sub-optimal experience, where do I draw the line between adjusting myself to be content with it, and adjusting my environment (where possible) in order to be more optimal?
Sitting on my bed typing this up, I could probably come up with a list of stupid little things that are “bad” in my view about my life at this moment – and I could probably do that no matter what my situation. But I’m doing the normal human thing and not sweating the small stuff. In moments, though, the kids might start getting loud and annoying. At that point I’ll have a choice: make the kids quiet down; retreat to somewhere quieter; or accept the noise and come to a point where it doesn’t bother me. That’s just a trivial example. We make these decisions day in and day out, most of them trivial, some of them not so trivial. My difficulty is that for many decisions, it is not clear to me which choice is more appropriate. Choose the path of acceptance, even in the big things, and I might be able to face even the worst life has to offer with equanimity – but at the risk of losing myself. Choose the path of action, and I retain my selfhood uneroded, but I could find myself forever warring against my circumstances, even when the real problem is in my own head. Where to strike the balance? How to know what is a legitimate complaint, not to be borne, and what is a petty irritation, better tackled through attitude adjustment?
Re: question..
Perhaps I just really don’t understand the problem..
Concrete point–Loud kids.. we have rules here.. kids will be kids–they like to run and scream and do stuff… but it is a rule that there is no running and screaming in the house. First time they break the rule, we ask them to stop.. second time, and they get a time out.. if that doesn’t stop them, then privileges start to disappear..
That is our rule.. we chose that at some point.. and we try to be consistent to it…
however.. other people may either find that too harsh or too lenient… They may think that we are too willing to adjust the environment or that we are too accepting of our circumstances.. and that is relatively fine… (within limits… i.e. no child gets beaten for such infringements…)
But the point I’m making is that no one else can tell you where the line is for everything.. you have to just decide where the line is.. and only you can do this.. because what might be a perfectly acceptable solution for me.. might just be awful for you…
I mean.. if you really want.. I can tell you exactly how you should react to each and every circumstance if you list them out… and then you can follow that and see if it makes you happy… and then do the opposite of the decisions that don’t make you happy…
but then.. I’d be making all the decisions for you… (which is the kind of thing that I was trying to get at above when bringing up the idea that often this kind of question is a way of avoiding making decisions..)
a new thought…
decision making is a process in which certain data/information comes in and criteria are applied to categorize this information in a certain fashion–and this categorization often then implies distinct consequences/actions..
and what you are looking for here is really a question of “how do I decide which criteria are valid for my life..”
i.e. you are looking for some sort of “meta-criteria” that tell you what criteria you should apply in your decision making…
well.. my answer is that there is no absolute standard for such “meta-criteria”–and I don’t believe anyone else can really tell you how you should set the criteria in the specific “should-avdi-react-to-this-information-or-not-kind-of-decision-making-process”…
only you can set that…
additionally–part of the reason that only you can set this–is that such criteria are not really very “abstractable”… i.e. there aren’t very many absolute general rules that they follow–but rather are going to depend entirely on what values you hold to be most important..
If your personal attachment to quiet is great–then you might go and make them be quiet.. if it is not that great… then you should write it off as an irritation to get used to.. (or avoided through the use of headphones.. etc..)
Again.. perhaps I’m just not seeing the problem here… when such things occur, I just make a decision.. if I experience that my decision–which I thought would lead to better things happening at that moment and in the future–turns out to be wrong.. then the next time it comes around.. I make a different decision… Life continues.. decisions are just made… criteria can and should evolve over time…
Re: question..
No, I don’t think you understand at all. Perhaps it’s just a personality type difference.
As I’ve said already, I’m not looking the answer to “will decision X make me happy?”. I already know the answer to that question, in most cases.
I’ll try to write more later, when I have time.
Re: question..
cool.. whenever.. (and I hope I’m not coming across as confrontational.. that’s not my intent at all…I’m just really curious…)
re-reading your last response.. I was struck by a few spots by a “turn of phrase” that I think I am interpreting much differently than you, perhaps, intend…
for example.. above… you write.. somewhere in the middle.. “My difficulty is that for many decisions, it is not clear to me which choice is more appropriate.”
What do you mean by “appropriate” here? appropriate to what? to whom? From whose standpoint? In what way?
To me.. the only really “appropriate” standpoint is something that minimizes the suffering of all the most/causes the least amount of suffering possible/creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people/etc etc… but I am fully aware that along with this external goal–that my subjective perspective will also weigh certain people higher than others–i.e. myself, my loved ones, my friends, acquantances, etc etc…
Thus.. perhaps that is why you keep seeing my posts referring back to a kind of “will decision X make me happy?”.. when that is not what I am intending overall–even if that is somewhat implicit in everything I am posting…
So back to the point.. what do you mean by “appropriate”–for “appropriate” is quite an ambiguous term..
Re: question..
My most recent post might help to put this discussion in perspective by putting it in more concrete terms. In this particular case, I know that my desire to be alone, or to be alone more of the time, is causing me unhappiness. Now, does it then behoove me automatically to make changes in my life which enable me to be alone more of the time, even if those changes hurt my family? Or does it behoove me to make changes in myself in order to eradicate the urge and be content with my condition? This is the question I’ve been rolling around in my head.
Re: question..
My most recent post might help to put this discussion in perspective by putting it in more concrete terms. In this particular case, I know that my desire to be alone, or to be alone more of the time, is causing me unhappiness. Now, does it then behoove me automatically to make changes in my life which enable me to be alone more of the time, even if those changes hurt my family? Or does it behoove me to make changes in myself in order to eradicate the urge and be content with my condition? This is the question I’ve been rolling around in my head.
Re: question..
cool.. whenever.. (and I hope I’m not coming across as confrontational.. that’s not my intent at all…I’m just really curious…)
re-reading your last response.. I was struck by a few spots by a “turn of phrase” that I think I am interpreting much differently than you, perhaps, intend…
for example.. above… you write.. somewhere in the middle.. “My difficulty is that for many decisions, it is not clear to me which choice is more appropriate.”
What do you mean by “appropriate” here? appropriate to what? to whom? From whose standpoint? In what way?
To me.. the only really “appropriate” standpoint is something that minimizes the suffering of all the most/causes the least amount of suffering possible/creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people/etc etc… but I am fully aware that along with this external goal–that my subjective perspective will also weigh certain people higher than others–i.e. myself, my loved ones, my friends, acquantances, etc etc…
Thus.. perhaps that is why you keep seeing my posts referring back to a kind of “will decision X make me happy?”.. when that is not what I am intending overall–even if that is somewhat implicit in everything I am posting…
So back to the point.. what do you mean by “appropriate”–for “appropriate” is quite an ambiguous term..
Re: question..
No, I don’t think you understand at all. Perhaps it’s just a personality type difference.
As I’ve said already, I’m not looking the answer to “will decision X make me happy?”. I already know the answer to that question, in most cases.
I’ll try to write more later, when I have time.
Re: question..
Perhaps I just really don’t understand the problem..
Concrete point–Loud kids.. we have rules here.. kids will be kids–they like to run and scream and do stuff… but it is a rule that there is no running and screaming in the house. First time they break the rule, we ask them to stop.. second time, and they get a time out.. if that doesn’t stop them, then privileges start to disappear..
That is our rule.. we chose that at some point.. and we try to be consistent to it…
however.. other people may either find that too harsh or too lenient… They may think that we are too willing to adjust the environment or that we are too accepting of our circumstances.. and that is relatively fine… (within limits… i.e. no child gets beaten for such infringements…)
But the point I’m making is that no one else can tell you where the line is for everything.. you have to just decide where the line is.. and only you can do this.. because what might be a perfectly acceptable solution for me.. might just be awful for you…
I mean.. if you really want.. I can tell you exactly how you should react to each and every circumstance if you list them out… and then you can follow that and see if it makes you happy… and then do the opposite of the decisions that don’t make you happy…
but then.. I’d be making all the decisions for you… (which is the kind of thing that I was trying to get at above when bringing up the idea that often this kind of question is a way of avoiding making decisions..)
a new thought…
decision making is a process in which certain data/information comes in and criteria are applied to categorize this information in a certain fashion–and this categorization often then implies distinct consequences/actions..
and what you are looking for here is really a question of “how do I decide which criteria are valid for my life..”
i.e. you are looking for some sort of “meta-criteria” that tell you what criteria you should apply in your decision making…
well.. my answer is that there is no absolute standard for such “meta-criteria”–and I don’t believe anyone else can really tell you how you should set the criteria in the specific “should-avdi-react-to-this-information-or-not-kind-of-decision-making-process”…
only you can set that…
additionally–part of the reason that only you can set this–is that such criteria are not really very “abstractable”… i.e. there aren’t very many absolute general rules that they follow–but rather are going to depend entirely on what values you hold to be most important..
If your personal attachment to quiet is great–then you might go and make them be quiet.. if it is not that great… then you should write it off as an irritation to get used to.. (or avoided through the use of headphones.. etc..)
Again.. perhaps I’m just not seeing the problem here… when such things occur, I just make a decision.. if I experience that my decision–which I thought would lead to better things happening at that moment and in the future–turns out to be wrong.. then the next time it comes around.. I make a different decision… Life continues.. decisions are just made… criteria can and should evolve over time…
Re: question..
This comes pretty close to being circular… “it’s good if it’s good and it’s bad if it’s bad”. But regardless, that doesn’t address my question. Boiled down, it’s this:
Given a sub-optimal experience, where do I draw the line between adjusting myself to be content with it, and adjusting my environment (where possible) in order to be more optimal?
Sitting on my bed typing this up, I could probably come up with a list of stupid little things that are “bad” in my view about my life at this moment – and I could probably do that no matter what my situation. But I’m doing the normal human thing and not sweating the small stuff. In moments, though, the kids might start getting loud and annoying. At that point I’ll have a choice: make the kids quiet down; retreat to somewhere quieter; or accept the noise and come to a point where it doesn’t bother me. That’s just a trivial example. We make these decisions day in and day out, most of them trivial, some of them not so trivial. My difficulty is that for many decisions, it is not clear to me which choice is more appropriate. Choose the path of acceptance, even in the big things, and I might be able to face even the worst life has to offer with equanimity – but at the risk of losing myself. Choose the path of action, and I retain my selfhood uneroded, but I could find myself forever warring against my circumstances, even when the real problem is in my own head. Where to strike the balance? How to know what is a legitimate complaint, not to be borne, and what is a petty irritation, better tackled through attitude adjustment?
question..
If you are only interested in living in the “here-and-now”… and it is about the experience of life.. then why would you care at all about any kind of judgement criteria… i.e. aren’t good and bad experiences all just “experiences” to exist in?
if this is not the case–i.e. you want more good than bad experiences… then you should be able to–with a little work–define what means good to you and what means bad… and then use that… and at the very least, you can reflect upon past experience without needing that to point you in any necessary future direction…
basically.. I don’t think anyone can give you an ‘answer’ to this question.. or rules of thumb that will actually apply to you any better than you can yourself… Yes.. this is a very subjective stance to take.. but I basically think it true.. (unless you feel happier in submission to other people’s ideas of happiness and goodness.. something that I pretty much abhor…)
Re: a few things…
I can understand how having a lot of ambition would make these decisions easier. If you have a definite direction, it would be easy to weight various options against it to see which would impede and which would advance your progression towards the goal. It’s harder for someone who’s more interested in existing in the here-and-now than in future achievement.
a few things…
1. I’ve been reading a bunch of Jung lately–specifically on the whole psychological typing–and it has been quite interesting… Jung’s ideas on extraverted and introverted types might give you a bit more perspective here… (not that it will solve your dilemna.. but more on that later..) He posits extraverted types as being object-oriented… i.e. their main focus is on objective and external data… This, of course, makes them very good at looking at the world–and interacting with it… and often in changing it…
On the other side—introverted types are more concerned with the subject.. and with subjective perceptions of stuff.. this makes them good at knowing themselves…
The reverse of each side is also discussed–such as the fact that extraverted types often lose themselves in trying to deal with the world (a businessman who has no other life than making his business successful) whereas introverted types become overly ego-centric and misperceive the world by trying to make it fit their own personal/subjective ideas about the world–rather than grasping the object as it really is…
Of course, I’m doing massive damage to much of what Jung is saying… and he goes into far more depth here–going into how this relates to thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting, etc… But if you haven’t already, you might want to take a gander at this particular Jung.. the title of the book I’m reading is called “Psychological Types” and the section is at the end.. Chapter X–General Description of types… (if you find the Collected Works of Jung–it’s Volume 6.)
2. To approach your question… I will ask you a question..
Why do you make decisions? Is it because they are forced upon you by the external world? Is it because you like to feel that you are controlling the destiny of your life? Is it, most likely, something in between?
I ask this.. because of something you said in a previous post–about lacking drive and ambition… this fact gained my attention because drive and ambition are something that I have in spades…. and…. (this is going to be a bit convoluted.. please bear with me..) because of this drive.. it has always been relatively easy to come to grips with questions about the “criteria for judgement,” which is what you seem to be getting at here…
Let me elaborate.. if you have serious amounts of drive–then you (or at least I!) cannot deliberate terribly long about judgement criteria.. because you know you have to make decisions and you want to make them.. then you will generally figure out your criteria rather quickly–mainly because if you don’t, then you cannot do anything and that is way more frustrating than picking the wrong criteria…
Of course–if you are at all reflective–then you tend to pay attention to how your decisions turn out–and you can attempt to adjust your criteria for judgement..
Thus to answer your question.. the answer comes about in an iterative process–you just pick a point between the poles you describe and go with that.. and you pay attention, and then adjust/tweak the point as life goes on..
it’s a process.. and there are no good “rules of thumb” other than to try to constantly improve/adjust your decisions as life goes on.. (of course, there are always the basic rules of “don’t believe you are god etc etc”.. but you already know all these..)
A further thought… Often in life, I’m come across people who delve into this problem of “but how should I decide?” and something that my experiences have, after reflection, seemed to tell me is that very often these same people like to think about this problem.. to dwell in it… because it affords them a way to refrain from making decisions at all…
i.e… if you cannot agree on a set of criteria for judgement.. than judgement cannot progress… and decision making is all about making a judgement one way or the other…
Now.. I am not saying that all reflection on criteria is like this… and I’m not saying that this instance necessarily fits into this designation.. but it is situation that I’ve seen before… and something that you might think about for at least a second (before saying to yourself.. “Oh, that, what a kook!” ;)))) )
okay.. must workout!