arguments for and against...
Two quick notes before I get to the meat of the entry:
(1)Dichotomies true and false have been on my mind. I am debating about whether or not I will post the list I came up with on Monday here on lj for discussion. The problem with that, however, is definitely that it would be for my own sake. True, from what I understand, a few more eyes could glance over it, but beyond that, I'm not sure it will bear any fruits. Nonetheless, this journal has since its inception been mostly a vanity project, a way of recording personal, embarrassing, non-professional, candid thoughts of mine out there.
(2) What is a birthday? I believe I have several, as well as additional "death" days to recall: Birthdays:
5 June 1986; 16 October 2003; 16 September 2010; 7 Apirl 2011. Those are four definitive days that challenged and shook many of my established paradigms. I can get into the specifics of all of those at a later time, for the truly interested...or at least for my own sake.
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.
The arguments I wish to address in this (hopefully) brief entry are as follows:
One of the principle dichotomies I have been addressing is as follows: the flexible response v. incremental progress.
The problem with that, of course, is that both, since their inception earlier this year, and as part of the theme of this year (to be linguistically-minded) are rather nebulous. Only now, in early-mid-October, are either beginning to make sense. I suppose, at their core, it is all about how I respond or react to my environment, and what I am doing to continue to make progress toward whatever long-term goals I may or may not have. That seems to be the issue at hand. It is not, however, as I attempted to portray or may have it implied, a necessary or even true dichotomy. It is merely a thought that my mind switches between.
I've read of people such as Larry McMurtry and Jimmy Carter and David Lynch setting and adhering to schedules, patterns, or routines. I wonder: can I or will I ever have that sort of discipline, routine, structure? Then, I have another question: will I ever really need that?
In 2003 or so, I was highly regular. I believe I've discussed this before, but for a while, I could look at my clock and seriously pinpoint down to the second if I was "ahead of" or "behind" where I was at that time yesterday. I had things very coldly calculated. This very much so drove me crazy. Two thoughts suddenly popped into my mind: the special needs student I worked with last week definitely had an obsession with wanting to get to class early/on-time. Also, another person, a friend from my past, usually had her schedule planned out as to whether or not she would or could have time to say, stop and tie her shoes before class. Sometimes she didn't, and would trek onto class, shoes untied.
Those impulses and reactions, and my own, sort of get to what I'm trying to explain. It is possible to over-plan, to over-do, to create too rigid of a system In my mind, there is a historical parallel: states such as Hitler's Germany may have made the clocks run on time, but at what cost? At what point does this drive for "efficiency" and "saving time" turn into a militaristic madness that erases the passion and need for authenticity? At what point does it become a parody?
It also reminds me of a quotation (I'll paraphrase) but basically, that if you can laugh at yourself, consistently, you stand a better chance in life than always being sour and angry and sad. But I digress.
On the other hand, the other extreme, would be to be so free-flowing and anarchic that not only could you not know what tomorrow would hold, you wouldn't even know what the next 5 minutes would hold. This, I feel, can be a consequence of the rigidity described above; the anarchic lifestyle often comes with alcohol and drugs, depression or other mental and emotional maladies, and awful circumstances beyond our control.
All this, I believe, is a justification for a "middle-of-the-road" reaction, known in this instance as the flexible response. It has worked so far. And, as a blend of anarchy and authoritarianism it can yield better, more consistent results that are not driven by obsessions but come from a positive, productive place of growth.
So, how does all that fit into the notion of "incremental progress?" I'm not sure. I'll get back to you on that, however, as right now I am sick and I feel my eyelids and body shutting down again.
I have a lot to do, a lot to do; however, currently the flexible response appears to be overriding the need for incremental progress. I don't know that I'll get much done today, in a material or spiritual or emotional sense. There are obligations to be fulfilled.
I suppose, I leave myself (and the reader) with a question: how do I go about marrying the flexible response and incremental progress? How do I reconcile what appears to be a growing disconnect, a gulf between reality and theory?
(1)Dichotomies true and false have been on my mind. I am debating about whether or not I will post the list I came up with on Monday here on lj for discussion. The problem with that, however, is definitely that it would be for my own sake. True, from what I understand, a few more eyes could glance over it, but beyond that, I'm not sure it will bear any fruits. Nonetheless, this journal has since its inception been mostly a vanity project, a way of recording personal, embarrassing, non-professional, candid thoughts of mine out there.
(2) What is a birthday? I believe I have several, as well as additional "death" days to recall: Birthdays:
5 June 1986; 16 October 2003; 16 September 2010; 7 Apirl 2011. Those are four definitive days that challenged and shook many of my established paradigms. I can get into the specifics of all of those at a later time, for the truly interested...or at least for my own sake.
We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast.
The arguments I wish to address in this (hopefully) brief entry are as follows:
One of the principle dichotomies I have been addressing is as follows: the flexible response v. incremental progress.
The problem with that, of course, is that both, since their inception earlier this year, and as part of the theme of this year (to be linguistically-minded) are rather nebulous. Only now, in early-mid-October, are either beginning to make sense. I suppose, at their core, it is all about how I respond or react to my environment, and what I am doing to continue to make progress toward whatever long-term goals I may or may not have. That seems to be the issue at hand. It is not, however, as I attempted to portray or may have it implied, a necessary or even true dichotomy. It is merely a thought that my mind switches between.
I've read of people such as Larry McMurtry and Jimmy Carter and David Lynch setting and adhering to schedules, patterns, or routines. I wonder: can I or will I ever have that sort of discipline, routine, structure? Then, I have another question: will I ever really need that?
In 2003 or so, I was highly regular. I believe I've discussed this before, but for a while, I could look at my clock and seriously pinpoint down to the second if I was "ahead of" or "behind" where I was at that time yesterday. I had things very coldly calculated. This very much so drove me crazy. Two thoughts suddenly popped into my mind: the special needs student I worked with last week definitely had an obsession with wanting to get to class early/on-time. Also, another person, a friend from my past, usually had her schedule planned out as to whether or not she would or could have time to say, stop and tie her shoes before class. Sometimes she didn't, and would trek onto class, shoes untied.
Those impulses and reactions, and my own, sort of get to what I'm trying to explain. It is possible to over-plan, to over-do, to create too rigid of a system In my mind, there is a historical parallel: states such as Hitler's Germany may have made the clocks run on time, but at what cost? At what point does this drive for "efficiency" and "saving time" turn into a militaristic madness that erases the passion and need for authenticity? At what point does it become a parody?
It also reminds me of a quotation (I'll paraphrase) but basically, that if you can laugh at yourself, consistently, you stand a better chance in life than always being sour and angry and sad. But I digress.
On the other hand, the other extreme, would be to be so free-flowing and anarchic that not only could you not know what tomorrow would hold, you wouldn't even know what the next 5 minutes would hold. This, I feel, can be a consequence of the rigidity described above; the anarchic lifestyle often comes with alcohol and drugs, depression or other mental and emotional maladies, and awful circumstances beyond our control.
All this, I believe, is a justification for a "middle-of-the-road" reaction, known in this instance as the flexible response. It has worked so far. And, as a blend of anarchy and authoritarianism it can yield better, more consistent results that are not driven by obsessions but come from a positive, productive place of growth.
So, how does all that fit into the notion of "incremental progress?" I'm not sure. I'll get back to you on that, however, as right now I am sick and I feel my eyelids and body shutting down again.
I have a lot to do, a lot to do; however, currently the flexible response appears to be overriding the need for incremental progress. I don't know that I'll get much done today, in a material or spiritual or emotional sense. There are obligations to be fulfilled.
I suppose, I leave myself (and the reader) with a question: how do I go about marrying the flexible response and incremental progress? How do I reconcile what appears to be a growing disconnect, a gulf between reality and theory?