I'll get to responding to Mr. Anonymous who had a very good comment, but first I'd like to point out the reason for this little ditty I did.
My point in writing this was not about defining yourself as the changes that you've made from your original self (whatever that happens to be) but instead as a way of putting my attitude towards positive change through the use of becoming a character into writing.
An example from my personal life is that for a while last summer I felt I had spent too much time partying and not enough really sitting down and reading at the pace I had before. So what I decided was not to TRY and read more often but to simply say this is what I DO, who I AM, and how I ACT.
The reason I believe this works (at least in my case) is that when I try to do something new, whatever it happens to be, I always get anxious because I'm the one doing it, and I start to have self doubt, #1 killer of anything funny, exciting or unpredictable that might happen to or through you.
On the other hand when I as (staying with the example) a Reader (a character I've created in my mind who read voraciously) read, I read because it is my natural behavior, the trick is tricking yourself into believing you can do nothing else for a limited amount of time. Until you can finally step out of character and instead draw upon Reader to sit down when you want to and read like a fucking machine.
That was the purpose. Now for the, once again, wonderful response.
There is no doubt that "Becoming something you aren't" implies on the surface a being that is "100% how we react and learn from the world" but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I come about 25-70-5 as far as the nature versus nurture argument runs. This is, 25% Nature, 70% Nurture, and lastly 5% what some might call magic, but I'll call the spice of life. Har har.
A connection with the "internal drive or innate personality" in no way conflicts with what I'm saying, at least as far as I can see, I believe you're reading a little much into what I'm saying. The goal I have is to use this method of personal progression as a way of accomplishing those ideals that my internal drive, drives me to accomplish.
As far as you comment: "One may think that this internal drive or innate personality is just an excuse for continual failure when faced with the same type of life struggles and situations", goes, I would say that if one is truly connected with that innate personality and is listening to it he cannot "fail".
I hope I've cleared things up.
"Dig yourself baby, you've got a ways to go", Uncle Jake
P.S. That "dig yourself" thing is just a quote I like, and has no bearing on you.
And what makes you think Anonymous is a Mr? Sheesh, sexism abounds. Anyway, in responce to Anon, I would say that the one thing about any person that can be constant is how a person interprets experiance. A person who only sees a failure as a failure instead of an experiance to learn from will be a static character, a person who can analyze all aspects of what happened (the why, how, and all the backstory for the whos) can, arguably, learn from the most mundane experiance. It is that attitude that people have that usually stays with them and will have a great impact on their personality. Or maybe I just want it to be true.
Okay guys. I guess I will stop writing anonymously. Well Atleast I should sign my name at the bottom for now on. I apologize. I just didn't want anyone to judge my response based on who they thought I was; male, female, friend or foe etc...and all you can do to an anonymous stranger is assume they might exist (as a guy or girl) and that they have an opinion on something. Keeps it simpler that way.
Anyways for Jake's sake I will simply say that this is Kathleen Greenhaw writing to you all. I saw this link on your screename the other day and thought I'd check it out. Great discussions and topics in here, that's for sure. I look forward to discussing more in the future.
My point in writing this was not about defining yourself as the changes that you've made from your original self (whatever that happens to be) but instead as a way of putting my attitude towards positive change through the use of becoming a character into writing.
An example from my personal life is that for a while last summer I felt I had spent too much time partying and not enough really sitting down and reading at the pace I had before. So what I decided was not to TRY and read more often but to simply say this is what I DO, who I AM, and how I ACT.
The reason I believe this works (at least in my case) is that when I try to do something new, whatever it happens to be, I always get anxious because I'm the one doing it, and I start to have self doubt, #1 killer of anything funny, exciting or unpredictable that might happen to or through you.
On the other hand when I as (staying with the example) a Reader (a character I've created in my mind who read voraciously) read, I read because it is my natural behavior, the trick is tricking yourself into believing you can do nothing else for a limited amount of time. Until you can finally step out of character and instead draw upon Reader to sit down when you want to and read like a fucking machine.
That was the purpose. Now for the, once again, wonderful response.
There is no doubt that "Becoming something you aren't" implies on the surface a being that is "100% how we react and learn from the world" but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I come about 25-70-5 as far as the nature versus nurture argument runs. This is, 25% Nature, 70% Nurture, and lastly 5% what some might call magic, but I'll call the spice of life. Har har.
A connection with the "internal drive or innate personality" in no way conflicts with what I'm saying, at least as far as I can see, I believe you're reading a little much into what I'm saying. The goal I have is to use this method of personal progression as a way of accomplishing those ideals that my internal drive, drives me to accomplish.
As far as you comment: "One may think that this internal drive or innate personality is just an excuse for continual failure when faced with the same type of life struggles and situations", goes, I would say that if one is truly connected with that innate personality and is listening to it he cannot "fail".
I hope I've cleared things up.
"Dig yourself baby, you've got a ways to go",
Uncle Jake
P.S. That "dig yourself" thing is just a quote I like, and has no bearing on you.
Reply
Anyway, in responce to Anon, I would say that the one thing about any person that can be constant is how a person interprets experiance. A person who only sees a failure as a failure instead of an experiance to learn from will be a static character, a person who can analyze all aspects of what happened (the why, how, and all the backstory for the whos) can, arguably, learn from the most mundane experiance. It is that attitude that people have that usually stays with them and will have a great impact on their personality.
Or maybe I just want it to be true.
Reply
Anyways for Jake's sake I will simply say that this is Kathleen Greenhaw writing to you all. I saw this link on your screename the other day and thought I'd check it out. Great discussions and topics in here, that's for sure. I look forward to discussing more in the future.
Later boys ;-) ~Kathleen~
Reply
Leave a comment